HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-5-01Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
MAY 1, 2013
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. Recognitions:
a. Paul Wright for service on the Architectural Review Board.
b. Proclamation recognizing May 5-11, 2013 as Municipal Clerks Week.
c. Proclamation recognizing May 6-10, 2013 as Public Service Recognition Week.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
Discussion/Action Items:
9. First Quarter CY 2013 – Capital Projects Status Report.
10. Implementing Multi-year Capital Budgeting.
11. Courts Study Results Update.
12. Economic Vitality Plan Quarterly Report.
13. 12:00 noon - Closed Meeting.
14. Certify Closed Meeting.
15. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies/Appointments.
1:30 p.m. - Public Hearings:
16. An ordinance to amend Chapter 2, Administration, of the Albemarle County Code, to amend Section 2-
202, Compensation of board of supervisors, to increase the compensation of the members of the
Board of Supervisors by an inflation factor of 2% effective July 1, 2013.
17. Consider granting water and sewer easements to the Albemarle County Service Authority across portions of Old
Trail Park (TMP 55E-01--H) to provide sanitary sewer and water service to nearby properties in the Old Trail Subdivision.
18. FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
Presentations:
19. Board-to-Board Quarterly Report, Steve Koleszar.
20. Albemarle County Service Authority Quarterly Report, Gary O’Connell.
21. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Quarterly Report, Tom Frederick.
22. Contradictory Consequences – Cash Proffers White Paper, Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0501/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/2/2020 4:23:21 PM]
Tentative
Work Session:
23. Review of County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary
Construction Program Budget.
24. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
25. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
26. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Approval of Minutes: February 6, February 22, February 25, March 4 and March 27, 2013.
8.2 Rio Road West Property Acquisition.
8.3 Audio Streaming of Board of Supervisors Meetings.
8.4 Line of Duty Act (LODA) Trust Agreement between VACORP and Albemarle County.
8.5 ZMA-2004-00007. Belvedere – Variations from Code of Development.
8.6 SDP-2013-00009. Seminole Trail Fire Station – Zoning Ordinance Waivers.
8.7 Resolution to Approve an Alternate to Act for the County Executive on The Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention.
FOR INFORMATION:
8.8 Planning Commission Annual Report.
8.9 VDoT, Culpeper District, Albemarle County Monthly Report, May 2013.
8.10 FY 2013 3rd Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report.
8.11 County Grant Application Report.
8.12 Illegal Hunting and Trespassing Enforcement.
8.13 CCP-2013-00001. County Use of 705 Rio Road West (Tax Map 06100-00-00-120K0).
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0501/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/2/2020 4:23:21 PM]
Tentative
NEW: CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0501/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/2/2020 4:23:21 PM]
Municipal Clerks Week
May 5-11, 2013
Whereas, the Municipal Clerk is a time honored and vital part of local government that exists
throughout the world and serves as an information center on functions of local
government and community; and
Whereas, the Municipal Clerk is the oldest among public servants; and
Whereas, the Municipal Clerk provides a professional link between the citizens and local governing
bodies and agencies of government at all levels; and
Whereas, Municipal Clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality and impartiality,
rendering equal service to all; and
Whereas, Municipal Clerks continually strive to improve the administration of the affairs of the
Office of Municipal Clerk through participation in education programs, seminars,
workshops and the annual meeting of their state, province, county and international
professional organizations; and
Whereas, it is most appropriate that we recognize the accomplishments of the Municipal Clerk;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that, we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do recognize
May 5 – 11, 2013 as Municipal Clerks Week
and further extend appreciation to Ella W. Jordan, CMC (Certified Municipal Clerk)
Clerk, and Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk, and to all Municipal Clerks for the
vital services they perform and their exemplary dedication to the communities they
represent.
Signed and sealed this 1st day of May, 2013.
Return to agenda
PUBLIC SERVICE RECOGNITION WEEK
MAY 6-10, 2013
WHEREAS, Americans are served daily by public servants at the federal, state, county, and
city levels. These unsung heroes do the work that keeps our nation working; and
WHEREAS, public service is among the most demanding and noble of professions; and
WHEREAS, Public Service Recognition Week is observed annually to celebrate and
recognize the valuable service that public servants provide to the nation; and
WHEREAS, over 500 Albemarle County Local Government employees work tirelessly to serve
our residents, businesses, and visitors, providing them with outstanding
customer service while maintaining careful stewardship of the resources with
which they have been entrusted; and
WHEREAS, without these public servants at every level, continuity would be impossible in a
democracy that regularly changes its leaders and elected officials; and
WHEREAS, we appreciate the many accomplishments and contributions made daily by these
public servants;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, do proclaim
May 6-10, 2013 as Public Service Recognition Week
and call upon the citizens of Albemarle County to join their fellow citizens across
the County to recognize the crucial role of public employees.
Signed and sealed this 1st day of May, 2013.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Rio Road West Property Acquisition
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize Purchase of 705 Rio Road West Property and
adopt Bond Reimbursement Resolution
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Henry
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 1, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On December 27, 2012 the County Executive, on behalf of the County, entered into a contingent contract to purchase 3.11
acres of property located at 705 Rio Road West (TMP 61-120K) currently owned by Martha Jefferson Hospital. The
potential uses identified for this property are a library and long-term storage facility to replace existing facilities. The
County retained Heyward Boyd Architects to perform reasonable due diligence to investigate any potential environmental
hazards, and to determine the feasibility of converting the former Phillips Supply Building at 705 Rio Road West into a
library and storage facility. The contract to purchase the property is contingent upon approval by the Board.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
Heyward Boyd Architects submitted its draft study in February 2013. No significant environmental hazards were
discovered. The study also concluded that the building located at 705 West Rio Road was appropriate for repurposing
as a community library and a storage facility based on a test-fit design.
The property would provide a permanent location for the Northside Library and long-term County warehouse/storage
space. The new facility would provide approximately 30,000 square feet of library space, space for the bookmobile and
branch office space, and over 20,000 square feet of warehouse space.
The Northside Library is currently located in leased space at Albemarle Square, and the County warehouse/storage
space is currently located in leased space at the former Comdial building on Seminole Trail. The new facility would
eliminate the need for those two leased spaces. As documented in prior CIP submissions for the construction of a new
Northside Library, a larger library facility is needed to support growth in the northern urban area. Based on population
figures and guidelines from the Community Facilities Plan and the State Library, the current Northside Library does not
meet minimum requirements. As the northern region of the County continues to develop, the population served and
usage levels of the Northside Library will continue to increase. The requirement for a larger facility was identified by a
County-funded study in June 2001. With a relatively minor investment in making physical changes to the existing
building’s basement, the County's warehouse/storage needs could be met, partially offset by discontinuing the lease
payments for the current warehouse facility.
This Rio Road West location for the replacement Northside Library offers an exciting opportunity to build community
cohesion and identity by actively engaging the public in programming and space considerations. County staff will
develop a public participation plan, according to Albemarle’s administrative guideline on community engagement, that
will provide a clear and transparent process for engaging community members, including the Places29 Community
Advisory Council and other stakeholder groups, at appropriate points in the design and construction process.
BUDGET IMPACT:
With Board action to appropriate the funds for the proposed project, staff could immediately proceed to “fast track”
design development in the current fiscal year, with the goal of completing the project in advance of the expiration of the
Northside Library lease on October 31, 2014. Notwithstanding this fast track approach, staff recognizes that this is an
aggressive schedule and some extension of the Northside Library lease may be required. The property acquisition cost
is $3,000,000, and the estimated cost to renovate the facility for the intended uses is an additional $8,820,373 for a total
AGENDA TITLE: Rio Road West Property Acquisition
May 1, 2013
Page 2
project cost of $11,820,373. The proposed revenue sources include $11,320,373 in loan proceeds and $500,000 in
Stonefield proffers. Funding for the replacement Northside Library and warehouse/storage space is programmed to be
funded by borrowed funds. The debt service associated with the loan proceeds is estimated to be issued in FY 16 for a
20-year term at an interest rate of 5.0%. The additional debt service is expected to be within the limits defined by the
County’s Financial Policies. Although decreased by this project, the CIP fund balance at the end of five years is
expected to meet the $2 million reserve goal.
The current Seminole Place warehouse lease expires on May 31, 2014. If the proposed project and funding schedule
are met, the County may be able to avoid renewing the warehouse lease. Discontinuing the lease on May 31, 2014
would result in a savings of $922,000 to the Adopted FY 14 five-year CIP.
The current Northside Library lease expires on October 31, 2014. Staff will make every effort to complete the project by
the expiration date; however, the County may need to extend the lease to coordinate with the construction schedule.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) approving the purchase of 705 Rio
Road West (TMP 61-120K) and authorizing the County Executive to execute any documents required to complete the
property acquisition, upon the review and approval of the documents by the County Attorney. This includes the
acceptance of any easements necessary for the intended use of the property.
Staff also recommends approval of the attached Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds
of a Borrowing (Attachment B). This resolution would allow the County to use up to $11,820,373 in bond proceeds to
reimburse the capital budget for expenditures incurred prior to the programmed borrowing of funds for this project.
In a separate agenda item, the Board will be requested to approve appropriation number 2013-088 totaling $11,820,373,
which provides funding for the purchase of the property and the required building renovations.
ATTACHMENTS:
A-Resolution Approving the Property Acquisition and Authorizing the County Executive to Execute Required Documents
B-Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 705 RIO ROAD WEST (TMP 61-120K)
WHEREAS, the County entered into a contingent Agreement of Sale for property
located at 705 Rio Road West (TMP 61-120K) dated December 27, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to purchase the property located at 705 Rio Road West
(TMP 61-120K) to provide necessary public facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the acquisition of the property located at 705 Rio Road West (TMP 61-120K), and
authorizes the County Executive to execute any documents required to complete the property
acquisition, upon the review and approval of the documents by the County Attorney. This
includes the acceptance of any easement necessary for the intended use of the property.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of ___ to
___, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE
EXPENDITURES WITH PROCEEDS OF A BORROWING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Virginia (the “Borrower”), intends to
acquire, construct and equip Albemarle County Parcel No. 06100-00-00-120K0 (also known as 705
Rio Road West) (hereinafter, the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, plans for the Project have advanced and the Borrower expects to advance its
own funds to pay expenditures related to the Project (the “Expenditures”) prior to incurring
indebtedness and to receive reimbursement for such Expenditures from proceeds of tax-exempt
bonds or taxable debt, or both;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that:
1. The Borrower intends to utilize the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds (the “Bonds”) or to
incur other debt, to pay the costs of the Project in an amount not currently expected to exceed
$11,820,373.
2. The Borrower intends that the proceeds of the Bonds be used to reimburse the
Borrower for Expenditures with respect to the Project made on or after the date that is no more than
60 days prior to the date of this Resolution. The Borrower reasonably expects on the date hereof
that it will reimburse the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds or other debt.
3. Each Expenditure was or will be, unless otherwise approved by bond counsel, either
(a) of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles
(determined in each case as of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to
the Bonds, (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a
grant to a party that is not related to or an agent of the Borrower so long as such grant does not
impose any obligation or condition (directly or indirectly) to repay any amount to or for the benefit of
the Borrower.
4. The Borrower intends to make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written
allocation by the Borrower that evidences the Borrower’s use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse
an Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid
or the Project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date
on which the Expenditure is paid. The Borrower recognizes that exceptions are available for certain
“preliminary expenditures,” costs of issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by “small
issuers” (based on the year of issuance and not the year of expenditure) and expenditures for
construction of at least five years.
5. The Borrower intends that the adoption of this resolution confirms the “official intent”
within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a vote of ______ to
______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on ______________.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Audio Streaming of Board of Supervisors Meetings
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on options regarding audio streaming of Board of
Supervisors meetings
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley and Davis; and Ms. Catlin and Ms. Jordan
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 1, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At the Board’s January 4, 2012 meeting, staff presented information regarding the possibility of video streaming Board
meetings. Due to the cost of video stream ing, and the County’s resource limitations, Board members approved the
County proceeding with a free advertisement-supported audio stream of Board meetings on the U Stream channel for a
trial period in order to assess listener levels and potential concerns to determine the best long term solution to meet the
Board’s desire to provide live audio streaming.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 6. Promote individual responsibility and citizen ownership of community challenges .
DISCUSSION:
Live streaming of meetings has had no negative impacts on the County’s server or bandwidth capacity s ince the
program establishing an advertisement-supported audio streaming of Board meetings on the County’s U Stream
channel began last year. Listener levels have steadily increased and audio streaming has become an expected and
relied upon opportunity for the public and the media to access Board meetings as they are occurring. However, the
frequency and length of the advertisements has increased over time, and the nature of those advertisements, which
the County does not control, have become disruptive to the listener experience. The best way to guarantee the
quality and reliability of the audio streaming experience is to shift from the free advertisement -supported model to one
where the county funds an ad-free live audio stream.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Contracting an ad-free audio cast for the necessary listener hours to meet the expected level of demand would cost
approximately $99 per month. If the listener hours exceed the standard 100-hours of listening, the cost would increase by
$.50 per listener hour. Based on the current number of viewers, staff does not anticipate the cost to exceed $99 per
month. Listenership will be monitored regularly to assess whether adequate listening hours are being provided at this
funding level. The cost can be absorbed within the Board of Supervisors’ current budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the County acquire an ad-free audio stream of Board meetings on the U Stream channel for a
six-month trial period at a cost of $99 per month with a re-evaluation at the end of the trial period.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Line of Duty Act (LODA) Trust
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adopt LODA Trust Agreement between VACORP and
Albemarle County
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis and Brown, and Ms. Burrell
and Ms. Allshouse L.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 1, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Line of Duty Act (LODA) was initiated and implemented by the State and is administered in accordance with Virginia
Code §§ 9.1-400 et seq. Prior to FY2012, the State funded the costs associated with providing LODA benefits. Changes
to LODA made by the Virginia General Assembly in 2011 and 2012 resulted in localities becoming responsible for funding
LODA benefit costs, effectively making LODA an unfunded mandate.
LODA provides important benefits to public safety officers and public safety volunteers and/or their beneficiaries due to
death or disability resulting from performance of the officer’s or volunteer’s duties. LODA benefits include:
A one-time death benefit payment of $100,000 to a covered employee’s beneficiary;
Continued health insurance coverage for the surviving spouse and any dependents of a covered employee who
dies in the line of duty; and
Continued health insurance coverage for the covered employee, spouse, and dependent children for a covered
employee who is disabled in the line of duty after July 1, 2000.
Covered persons in the County include:
Law enforcement officers;
The Sheriff and Deputy Sheriffs; and
Members of the fire companies, fire departments and rescue squads recognized by the County as an integral part
of the County’s official public safety program .
LODA coverage also applies to death or disability caused by service-related hypertension or heart disease, and to qualified
volunteer or salaried firefighters whose death or disability is caused by a respiratory disease. In addition, LODA coverage
applies to a multitude of cancers, including prostate, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer, for those with 12 years of continuous
service who have had contact with toxic substances encountered in the line of duty.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
Localities were required to make an irrevocable choice to either opt-in or opt-out of the State’s plan by Board
resolution before the start of FY12. If the decision were to opt-in, the result would have been annual bills from the
Virginia Retirement System, the LODA plan administrator for the State, at whatever rate the State establishes for that
year.
On June 6, 2012, the Board adopted a resolution to opt-out of the State’s LODA plan and to purchase prospective
LODA coverage from VACORP. The County’s eight existing claims that were filed with the State before July 1, 2012
are also covered by VACORP, however, the County is required to join the VACORP LODA Trust and to enter into a
Trust Agreement with VACORP in order for VACORP to cover the liabilities associated with those claims.
AGENDA TITLE: Line of Duty Act (LODA) Trust
May 1, 2013
Page 2
The VACORP LODA Trust was created to address the following issues related to funding those claims:
1. Recording the liabilities for known, pre-existing LODA claims that occurred prior to July 1, 2012; and
2. Recording the liabilities for unknown, pre-existing LODA claims that occurred but were not reported prior to
July 1, 2012.
VACORP members pay the annual cost of the LODA claims that existed and were reported before opting out of the
state fund. The establishment of the VACOPR LODA Trust allows the Pool to direct annual contributions for the
above-described claims to the LODA Trust. This enables the Trust to book the liabilities associated with the claims.
Absent a Trust membership, the liability for these claims must be carried on the County’s financial statements. With
the LODA Trust, the financial liability exposure for the Pool and its members is diminished.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no membership cost associated with the LODA Trust Agreement.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the County Executive to
execute the attached Trust Agreement (Attachment B).
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Resolution
B – LODA Trust Agreement
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LODA TRUST AGREEMENT
BETWEEN VACORP AND THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
WHEREAS, the County opted out of the State’s Line of Duty Act (LODA) Plan and
purchased prospective LODA coverage from VACORP effective July 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the County had existing LODA claims prior to June 30, 2012, and is
therefore required to join the VACORP LODA Trust and to enter into a LODA Trust Agreement
with VACORP regarding the coverage of those claims.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County
Attorney, the LODA Trust Agreement between VACORP and the County of Albemarle.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of
______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT B
1
VACORP LODA TRUST
The County of Albemarle, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“Grantor”),
being authorized and directed to do so, does make this trust agreement dated April 3, 2013 with
VACORP, a local government risk sharing pool, which is an instrument of the government of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, as Trustee (“the Trustee”). The Trustee and any successor Trustees
are all referred to herein as “the Trustee.”
The name of this trust agreement is the “VACORP LODA TRUST dated April 3, 2013”
(“Trust”) and is effective July 1, 2012.
ARTICLE 1
TRUST PROVISIONS
A. Transfer of Assets and Liabilities. Contemporaneously with the execution of this trust,
Grantor (hereinafter “Member”) does transfer to the Trustee of the Trust all liabilities
appertaining to any claim which they may have prior to July 1, 2012 under the Line of
Duty Act pursuant to §9.1-400 et seq. of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (“Act”)
and does promise to timely pay for said liabilities.
B. Line of Duty Act Trust Fund. By entering into this Trust, the Member acknowledges that
it has opted out of the Commonwealth of Virginia Line of Duty Act Trust Fund.
C. Eligibility of Members. The Member shall purchase liability insurance from Trustee
covering claims under the Act. Likewise the Member shall timely pay to the Trustee all
premiums for said insurance and monies for claims prior to July 1, 2012. In the event a
Member purchases insurance from other than the Trustee, the Trustee and this Trust shall
have no liability or obligation to such Member.
D. Administration of Claims. During the existence of this Trust, the Trustee shall administer
all pre-July 1, 2012 claims of its members under this Trust, shall provide the
administration of all claims and shall provide insurance to insure against claims under the
Act to all Members as of July 1, 2012.
E. Insurance & Payments by Members. The Member is obligated to purchase liability
insurance for claims under the Act from the Trustee and pay the Trustee those payments
for insurance and claims as provided for under the Act, which payments must be timely
made. If a payment is overdue by thirty (30) days, or if an insurance premium payment is
not made within thirty (30) days of the invoice date, then the Trustee shall not provi de
claims administration, insurance or payment to claimants, until payments are brought
current and all insurance coverage is purchased from the Trustee.
ARTICLE II
TRUSTEE PROVISIONS
A. Trustee’s Management Powers. The Trustee shall have the powers granted by law and
the powers in Sections 64.2-105, 64.2-777 and 64.2-778 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
ATTACHMENT B
2
amended, as in effect on the date of the signing of this agreement. These sections are
incorporated in this agreement by this reference.
B. Trustee’s Compensation. The Trustee, or any successor Trustee, shall receive
compensation for services rendered. The corporate Trustee, or any successor corporate
Trustee, shall receive compensation for services rendered according to their list of fees
published from time to time.
C. Resignation of Trustee. The Trustee may resign as Trustee by notice to the Members.
The resignation shall take effect upon the effective appointment of a successor Trustee.
D. Successor Trustee. The Trustee shall have the right to designate a successor Trustee who
shall be any natural person or corporation having trust powers, which shall be effective
upon the resignation or termination of corporate existence of the Trustee. Such
designation shall be made while such Trustee is serving as Trustee by an instrument
executed by the Trustee during and by the successor Trustee. In the event that the
Trustee does not appoint a successor Trustee or a successor Trustee does not appoint its
successor Trustee, which it shall have the privilege to do hereunder, the Members shall
have the right to appoint a Trustee.
E. Actions of Prior Trustee. No Trustee serving under this agreement shall be responsible
for or required to inquire into any acts or omissions of a prior Trustee.
ARTICLE III
RIGHTS RESERVED BY MEMBERS
A. Revocation and Amendment. The Member reserves the right to opt out of this Trust by a
writing signed by the Member and delivered to the Trustee. All obligations of Member to
the Trust shall be paid by Member prior to opting out. Any amendment that changes the
duties or compensation of the Trustee shall require the consent of the Trustee.
B. New Members. The Member agrees that new members as defined by the Act may
become Members if the Trustee accepts them.
ARTICLE IV
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Protection from Claims. To the extent permitted by law, the principal and income of any
trust shall not be liable for the debts of any beneficiary or subject to alienation or
anticipation by a beneficiary, except as otherwise provided.
B. Governing Law. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of Virginia.
C. Signatures. This trust may be executed in counterparts and electronically.
ATTACHMENT B
3
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
The Trustee accepts the terms of the VACORP LODA TRUST dated April 3, 2013.
VACORP
By:______________________________
Administrator, Officer
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY/CITY OF ________________________, To-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of____________,
2013, by _______________________________, Trustee, ____________________ of VACORP,
on behalf of VACORP, who is identified and known to me.
_____________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:________________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:_____________________________
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY/CITY OF _______________________, To-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of __________,
2013, by Thomas C. Foley, County Executive, on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
who is identified and known to me.
_____________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: _________________
Return to exec summary
BELVEDERE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS VARIATION
MAY 1, 2013 BOS
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA200400007 –Variations from Belvedere Code of
Development
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of the following sections of the Zoning
Ordinance:
1. Section 8.5.5.3 Variations From Approved
Plans, Codes, And Standards Of
Developments
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Benish and Ms. Ray
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE: May 1, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Belvedere development is located off of Rio Road, just west of Dunlora. Belvedere was rezoned to Neighborhood
Model District, with an associated application plan and Code of Development, in October 2005 (ZMA2004 -00007). The
applicant is requesting a variation from the approved Belvedere Code of Development.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant would like to revise the Architectural Standards portion of the Code of Development (pages 17 -31). This
proposal includes simplifying the requirements and architectural review process based on experience gained during the
first five years of development build-out. Architectural standards are not being diminished and all proposed changes have
been developed in accord with the Belvedere resident's ARB committee. The applicant has provided a redline document
which illustrates all proposed additions to the Architectural Standards in blue text and all deletions in red text (see
Attachment A). Section 8.5.5.3(a) authorizes the Director of Planning to grant variations from the approved application
plat and/ or code of development. However, due to a recent State Suprem e Court decision, these variations must now be
approved by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Section 33.5 Staff is recommending
approval of this variation request (#52).
VARIATION #52:
The applicant submitted the following request: “To simplify the requirements and architectural review process following
five years of neighborhood experience and lessons learned. Architectural standards are not being diminished; all
proposed changes have been developed in accord with the Belvedere resident's ARB committee.” Staff analysis of the
variation request is provided below:
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
The design is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development.
Density is not increased.
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development
in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application.
This variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application.
BELVEDERE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS VARIATION
MAY 1, 2013 BOS
2
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variation request #52 as described above, with the following conditions :
The Belvedere Code of Development must be updated to reflect t he proposed changes prior to approval of the
Phase II Final Plat.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of variation #52 with conditions as recommended in this report .
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Belvedere Architectural Standards Redlines Document
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Belvedere
Architectural Review Committee
THE FOLLOWING IS COPIED FROM THE
“ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS” DOCUMENT
Architectural Standards
Architectural Values
The following are the guiding principles the Architectural Standards Committee (ASC) will use
in conjunction with the builder/architect design team to develop the original built form of
Belvedere.
The primary function of this document is to establish the baseline for interpretation by the ASC.
It is the expectation of the ASC that the eventual homeowner led committee will include more
specific rules than this document prescribes as the Belvedere neighborhood evolves. Stonehaus,
the developer of Belvedere, will be available long term to assist the ASC in managing their
vision of the community.
Diversity
Belvedere will feature an emphasis on diversity in the following categories:
o Roof Treatment and Orientation
o Elevations
o Materials
o Colors
o Edge Treatments
o Landscaping
o Massing
Diversity Guidelines:
1. The distribution of lot sizes at Belvedere creates inherent diversity between building
product. Specific diversity constraints of elevations and colors are not necessary, but
homebuilders and residents are encouraged to view the street as a composition.
2. A variety of roofing materials are encouraged. Accent roof material is encouraged to
be metal or slate.
Pedestrian Oriented Neighborhood
In order to encourage walkability throughout Belvedere, homes should artfully engage the
street. The pedestrian zone will extend from front door to front door, creating a dynamic space
that encourages social interaction and well-being.
Pedestrian Orientation Guidelines:
1. Walkway material from the sidewalk to the front porch or other similar entranceway to
the home, is encouraged to be diverse.
Rhythm of Public/Private Spaces
The street will be the strength of Belvedere. To foster a vital street complex it will be important
to define the public spaces which are characterized by sidewalks from the semi-public defensible
spaces, such as the home’s front yard and front porch. Methods for defining those spaces
include:
o A broad variety of edge treatments including retaining walls, cheek walls, hedges, fences,
landscaping, and slope may accomplish this distinction.
o A buffer space that protects the private space on the front of the house.
o A “Cool Zone” that is most commonly defined by a front porch, but could be described
by a patio or terrace.
o A raised finished floor to delineate the private space within the house as separate from
the public realm
o Carefully crafted outdoor space in relation to floorplan on the side and/or back of the
homes.
Public/Private Space Guidelines:
1. Backyard privacy fences should no taller than 6’ and the finished side of the fence
should face out.
Massing in Relation to Lot/Block/Neighborhood
We value the exterior spaces throughout the neighborhood in conjunction with the living spaces
inside the homes. Homes must:
o Address the corners, often with carriage units.
o Possess diversity of roof structures and orientation
o Address the public spaces
o Be sited properly to ensure pleasant viewsheds are captured. An example may include
locating the house at the terminus of a street so that it becomes a prominent landmark.
Massing Guidelines:
1. There will be a minimum of 103 carriage house units in the community. Each
carriage house will meet the requirements for a single family dwelling as defined in
the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Each Carriage House Unit shall
conform to the Code of Development. They shall be on the same parcel as the
primary dwelling unit to which it is an accessory. Carriage House Units may not be
subdivided from the primary residence. The subdivision restriction shall be described
on the plat creating such parcels and be incorporated into each deed conveying title to
such parcels.
a. All Carriage House Units must employ the same exterior color selections as
the primary residence. Setback regulations for Carriage House Units shall be
the same as those for garages
b. Carriage House Units are separate, detached independent living units which
are included with a single family detached unit and clearly subordinate to the
primary residence. These units are typically located above a garage and are
restricted to a maximum finished area of 800 square feet. These units may
have a distinct street address and may be provided with separate utility meters
if utilized as a rental unit.
2. Homes on corner lots should address the corner, preferably with a side entry to the
porch or terrace. Side elevations for corner lots should be well-proportioned.
Authenticity of Style
The style of the homes will be determined by the homebuilders. However, it will be important to
pay specific attention to the authenticity of the components of the chosen architectural styles.
Specific areas for concern are the:
o eave
o cornice
o material
o color
o differentiation of floors where appropriate
o base, middle and top
o Raised finished floor
o Proportion
o façade components
o organization of elements
o elements themselves
trim dimensions, column dimensions, etc
Authenticity Guidelines:
1. Architectural style should be supported by stylistically correct architectural detailing.
2. Material and color changes should occur at inside corners. They should not occur on
outside corners or randomly on elevations.
3. Doghouse chimneys are allowed with a foundation.
4. Shutters are to be full-operational in appearance, including hinges and shutter-dogs.
Vinyl shutters are not allowed.
5. Eave overhangs should match the style of the house.
Sustainability
Sustainability is defined by the quality of life in a place. A community is sustainable when the
economic, social and environmental systems that make up that community are providing a
healthy, productive, meaningful life for all residents, both present and future.
The goals for Belvedere for Sustainability include:
Utilization of Solar Orientation
o Public buildings and amenities will be sited to achieve an appropriate balance
between solar insulation and the uses of the buildings or amenities.
Energy Efficiency
o EarthCraft Certification
Water Management & Conservation
o Low flow fixtures
o Rainwater roof catchments and storage, where possible
o Utilizing stormwater for greywater systems, e.g. irrigation or toilet flushing.
Durability
o Durable exterior finish materials
o High quality weather barrier and flashing details
o Flexible interior layouts (structure and utility layouts) (adaptive reuse)
Indoor Air Quality
o Controlled Mechanical Ventilation
o Low VOC finishes and adhesives
o Flooring options to meet American Allergy Institute standards.
Daylighting
o Orientation of buildings, placement of glazings, and coordination of overhangs to
allow natural daylighting of interior spaces.
Sustainability Guidelines:
1. All homes must be built to EarthCraft standard.
Architectural Review Protocol
Homebuilders
The ASC review process has been crafted to be collaborative. The ASC encourages dialogue
with homebuilders to avoid difficulties at the Final Review stage. The steps to follow for each
stage of the review process are:
o Visioning – A presentation by the Belvedere ASC to the homebuilders to begin the
dialogue of the built form.
o Conceptual Review – Review by the ASC of Blockwide Sketches, elevations, and a site
plan.
o Schematic – Review by the ASC of floorplans and elevations.
o Design Development – Workshops between the ASC and homebuilders are encouraged.
The by-products from this stage will be the basis for the exhibits submitted at the Final
Review stage.
o Final Review – Homebuilders should submit the Final Review package to the ASC
administrator. Package to include:
1. ASC Review Checklist
2. Detailed elevation drawings
3. Site Plan including elevations of finished floor and relationship to neighboring
structures.
4. Landscape Plan including hard and softscape elements.
5. Color recommendations for the submitted product.
6. Material submittals are requested.
o Final Inspection – The homebuilder should schedule a final inspection with the ASC
administrator prior to any third-party closing.
ASC Review Schedule:
1. Submittals by close of business Friday of each week.
2. If submittals are complete, review by ASC on the following Wednesday.
3. Approval or denial letter to be sent out by the following Friday.
4. Final Inspection – Scheduled with ASC administrator; compliance letter provided
within 3 days.
Residents
The architectural review process for residents of the community should be limited to color
changes and significant renovations. If there is a question about the applicability of an ASC
review, please contact the ASC administrator. Depending on the nature of the renovations, the
ASC administrator will supply the submittal requirements to the resident.
Construction Protocol
Homebuilders and Residents
Due to the nature of the Belvedere community, construction activity will be closely monitored
for sensitivity to the neighborhood. Specific requirements include:
o Portable toilets should be provided by builders on site.
o On-site materials should be delivered and stored only on site, or on an adjacent lot owned
by the homebuilder. Materials should not be delivered and placed in open space or on
lots not owned by homebuilders.
o Trash should not accumulate on site. Dumpsters shall be located off of alleys when at all
possible.
o Each homebuilder is responsible for their workers and the workers of their
subcontractors.
o Construction hours are from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Construction can not begin on
Sundays before 11:00 AM.
o Contractors are responsible for keeping dust to a minimum.
o Contractors are responsible for controlling drainage.
o Construction trailers should be applied for from the ASC Administrator.
o Parking should be on-site or on-street and not interfere with U.S. Mail delivery. Parking
is not allowed in open space.
o Any and all damage is the responsibility of the homebuilder.
o Concrete suppliers and contractors are not allowed to clean equipment in common areas,
streets or vacant sites.
o Use of neighboring hose bibs is prohibited.
THE FOLLOWING IS COPIED FROM THE “CODE OF
DEVELOPMENT” DOCUMENT
3. THE BUILT FORM OF BELVEDERE
PHILOSOPHY
Successful neighborhoods and communities are not random, unplanned events. In the
past, relatively simple planning and controls over time have produced places of such
charm and warmth that they have a place in this nation’s collective subconscious. This
memory and those places that survive today have in many ways set the standard for what
our new neighborhoods and communities should be. The difficulty lies in creating in a
few years what in the past took several decades.
ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS
a. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
A broad range of historic and contemporary American architectural styles (listed below)
can be used as “points-of –departure” for designs at the community of Belvedere. These
styles are compatible because they share similar proportions, details, massing, materials,
and roof form. The buildings approved for the Community of Belvedere must exhibit
compatibility with these elements however unique interpretations of the historic style are
allowed and encouraged. This could mean that the design expression becomes simpler
without looking cheap, the details may become simpler but not smaller, or the
arrangement of elements may vary slightly from traditional norms. There should not be
so much variation as to be no longer compatible with a more traditional interpretation.
The Architectural Standards Committee (“ASC”) will provide early input to the
applicants as to the appropriateness of design and enforce the standards of this code and
the Declaration. The Architectural Standards for Belvedere will be approved by the ASC
prior to submission to the County to ensure compliance with the Code of Development.
The ASC will review all individual submissions prior to review by the county.
ACCEPTED TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLES
Remove any reference to specific architectural styles – diversity is not limiting
· COLONIAL REVIVAL
· GREEK REVIVAL
· SHINGLE
· GEORGIAN AND ADAM
· BUNGALOW
· ARTS AND CRAFTS
· CONTEMPORARY
o Restricted to lots with frontage of 50 feet or greater.
GENERAL STYLE, FORM, MASSING AND PROPORTION OF STRUCTURES
· The main mass of the building shall have all the ground floors on the same level.
Split-level designs are not permitted without ASC approval.
· A predominately two-story street elevation is encouraged with a minimum of 50% of
homes being two story.
· Similar building elevations shall be separated to minimize the awareness of repetitive
floor plans and elevations. For single family detached homes an identical house front
elevation may not be repeated more than once in any grouping of 6 or fewer adjacent
lots sharing frontage on a common street. An identical plan may not be constructed
on lots that face each other across a roadway other than an Alley
· All front facing gables shall have attic windows.
· Entry porches or stoops must provide cover by having a cantilevered, bracketed or
column supported roof, a recessed entry door, or a combination of both.
· 9’ minimum ceiling heights at the first level are required.
· 50% of the detached homes shall have front porches with a minimum depth of 7 feet
and a minimum width of 15 feet. Lots requiring such porches will be determined by
the ASC.
· Foundations shall be crawl spaces or partial or full basements. Flat or elevated slabs
will be considered if grading can be accommodated with a minimal impact to existing
vegetation.
MATERIALS, COLOR AND TEXTURE
· All exterior paint colors shall be selected from the Belvedere Paint Schedule. –
suggest “James Hardie Siding Products – colors”
· Walls shall be no more than one color per material used.
· Brick color, range and texture shall be based on the brick choices provided in the
Belvedere Materials Schedule
· Stone (cultured or natural) color and style shall be based on the stone choices
provided in the Belvedere Materials Schedule
· Board and Batten accents using cementitious panels need a batten spacing of no
greater than 18” using 5/4”x 3” minimum batten strips.
· Roof Shingles style and color shall be selected from the Belvedere Materials
Schedule. Other shingle styles and colors will be considered by the ASC.
· Accent color brick may be used if approved by the ASC.
· Accent wall patterns of vertical board and batten, trimmed panels and/or shingles will
may be limited to gables, window bays or other secondary elements or surfaces at the
side or alley elevations. The materials for these patterns may be wood or cementious
fiber material.
· Precast or cast stone elements may be used if approved by the ASC.
· Building wall at the streets shall be finished in modular brick, cultured stone,
horizontal lap siding (4” or 6” to show), stucco or shingle siding
· Siding may be wood , cementious fiber material, or vinyl. Accent wall patterns of
vertical board and batten, trimmed panels and/or shingles will be limited to gables,
window bays or other secondary elements or surfaces at the side or alley elevations.
The materials for these patterns may be wood or cementious fiber material. Other
materials may be considered.
· No more than 30% of the homes on any street may incorporate vinyl siding. All vinyl
siding shall be selected from the Belvedere Materials Schedule. Each builder within
the community shall be allocated a 30% allowance for vinyl sided units. These
allotments are non-transferable and may NOT be used on adjacent lots.
Vinyl will not be allowed on any corner lot.
Vinyl will not be allowed on any lot fronting the Village Green
· Exposed foundations shall be brick, painted concrete, brick embossed or parged.
· The building walls veneered in brick should be simple in form and massing. Avoid
brick extending over portions of roof.
· Foundations should shall be exposed a minimum of 24” at the street sides for homes
with a 10 foot setback or less. A flush slab on grade condition can occur at the alley
and side yards or on lots with front yard setbacks of 25 feet or more. Final home
sighting
· Siding shall be at 4”, 6” or 8” to weather.
· Brick shall be modular in size with brown sand mortar.
· A water table detail is required at the street elevation.
· All exterior colors and materials will be approved by the ASC.
· Wood and cementitous siding will be painted in accordance with an approved color
scheme prepared by the applicant. Refer to the appendix for general standards on
color. No adjacent homes may use the same color scheme
ROOF PITCH AND FORM
· Roof forms should be simple and based on the Architectural style selected.
· Principal roofs will range from 4:12 to 12:12 based on the selected Architectural style
· Secondary roofs can be a lower pitch, with a minimum of a 2:12 slope.
· Main roof sections shall have the same pitch.
· Dormer design shall be consistent with the selected Architectural style.
· Fascia, soffit and frieze make up the roof to wall design with a full pediment or a
cornice return at the gable ends unless otherwise approved due to architectural style.
· Gable attic windows of various shapes often enhance the design along with a full
pediment gable
· Rake overhangs should be at least 12” between 6” and 12” on all elevations.
· Front Roof overhangs should be a minimum of 12”
· The design of the soffit and frieze detail should be given special attention. The Frieze
design should be consistent with the architectural style of the building.
· The frieze detail at the street shall continue uninterrupted around the building unless
otherwise determined by the ASC.
· Main roofs shall be a 25 year or better “Architectural” dimensional asphalt shingle, a
natural slate, standing seam metal or a simulated slate or flat tile wood shingle or
shake.
· Ridge vents shall be a rigid plastic designed to receive shingles. Additional roof
venting required shall be achieved with gable vents or square through roof vents
painted to match roof color and located away from the street view.
· Gutters and down spouts where needed shall be typical ogee profile or half round in
metal or vinyl.
· Gutters/downspouts should be connected to storm drainage where possible.
Gutters/downspouts should be connected to under-ground collection systems and
piped to daylight so as to minimize impact to neighboring lots.
· Flat roofs shall have a parapet or railing.
· Roof penetrations shall be placed away from view from the street and placed low on
the roof. Paint to match the roof color.
· Skylights shall be flat panel and placed out of primary view from the street
· Solar panels located on a roof shall be placed within 10 deg. of flush with the roof
and outside of primary view of the street.
ARCHITECTURAL ORNAMENTATION
· Columns shall be round or square and a minimum of 8” in diameter and made of
either wood or fiberglass unless otherwise approved by the ASC
· Railings shall be painted or pre-finished metal or wood. Wood railing visible from the
street and under cover shall be finish grade primed and painted with a turned top rail
and based rail.
· Foundation vents shall be set into the masonry wall and made of plastic or metal.
· Home address numbers shall be (select a desired font/style) selected from the styles
shown in the Belvedere color and material palette and located in a prominent and
well-designed location.
· No wood front steps will be allowed. Brick steps are encouraged to use shaped brick
tread brick.
FAÇADE TREATMENT
· The Belvedere ASC will provide a list of acceptable window manufacturers.
· Windows may be a Wood, Vinyl, or Clad Wood product. They may be pre-finished
or field painted.
· Window operating styles may be Double or Single Hung or Casement
· Double hung operable windows with true or simulated divided panes are preferred.
· Windows with between the glass or interior applied grills are only permitted with
ASC approval.
· Full light windows will be reviewed by the ASC on a case-by-case basis.
· For all Residential Structures: Large fixed windows can occur only in combination
with operable windows. Small fixed accent windows are accepted.
· Main doors may be made of Wood or Fiberglass. Fiberglass doors should have a
wood-like texture.
· Garage doors may be made of Wood, Fiberglass, or Metal.
· For all Residential Structures: Double hung windows shall have the proportions of a
vertical rectangle in the range of 3:1 to 1.5:1 height to width.
· Windows may be configured in the building wall singularly or in horizontal groups.
· In two story building walls, windows should be stacked or otherwise arranged in a
regular and symmetrical pattern.
· Doors should be arranged with windows in the building wall, usually by stacking a
window above the door.
· Garage doors occur at the alley side, or to the side street at an end unit. When the
garage is facing a street it should be recessed 18” from the face of the building wall.
· Entry doors should have sidelights and/or transoms.
· Arched and curved transoms could be considered at the entry door.
· The style of the garage door should be consistent with the Architectural character.
· Glazing in the garage door is encouraged.
· Window trim is critical to the success of the elevation. A minimum of a 5/4” x 4” trim
is required. Window sills shall be required except where authentic architectural
interpretation requires something less
· The windows and doors in a brick wall condition shall be trimmed with a brick mold
or 5/4”x material at the jamb and head.
· Brick, cast stone, or stone lintels are required unless the frieze covers this condition.
· Brick, cast stone, or stone sills are required in stone or brick walls.
· Door trim can be flat or ribbed with a base block.
· Doorbells are to be mounted centered in jamb trim.
· A water table detail is required at the street elevation.
· Corner trim shall be 5/4” x 6”minimum wood grade B or cementious fiber material.
· Nails and screws, if exposed, shall be stainless steel or equivalent.
· Careful attention should be paid to the flashing to allow it to blend with the
surrounding materials.
· Exterior doors shall be hinged.
· Shutter size shall be proportional to the window opening, either full size or one half
size. Shutter style can be louvered or solid.
· Shutters must be operable or appear to be by using shutter dogs and blocking behind
the inside edge to create separation between the wall and the back of the shutter.
· Shutters must be solid material equal in design and dimension to a wood product.
· Gable vents may be wood or fiberglass, and in an appropriate size and style for the
Architectural Style.
· Entry Stoops and their steps must be of brick construction and tie into the exposed
brick foundation. Where foundations are stucco finish, stoops and steps may be
finished to match.
· Front porches shall be of wood, concrete or brick construction. Concrete infill is
permitted.
· Side porches may be of wood or brick construction with wood or brick steps
· Screen porches shall have supports that divide screening into vertical rectangles.
· In brick porch construction the skirt and steps are an extension of the foundation wall.
A lightly textured concrete surface is acceptable. Colored concrete or paint is
recommended for surface treatment. Stone, tile or brick pavers are also encouraged.
· Porch ceilings shall be plasterboard, beaded planks, or beaded plywood.
· Chimneys that occur on the exterior wall at the street side must be veneered in brick
or stone. Chimneys that occur in the roof facing the street must be well detailed and
will be considered by the ASC on a case-by-case basis.
· Exposed concrete block foundation walls are not allowed. Parged or painted concrete
is allowed. Concrete foundation walls on side or rear should have brick embossed
pattern if the front foundation wall is brick.
COLONIAL REVIVAL- Based on the Houses of the Colonial Period, this style is
predominately a two-story side gable or gambrel rectangular volume. First and second level
windows and doors are typically stacked, but there is more flexibility in the pattern than with the
Georgian and Adam style. Windows are often doubled and change patterns between the first and
second level. Roof dormers are a common element. Symmetry is important but not a rule.
EXTERIOR FAÇADE
Configuration
· Colonial Revival houses are simple rectangular side gabled or hipped two story facades.
· Massing can be symmetrical or asymmetrical.
· The entrance should be centered on the front facade if all other elements are symmetrical.
· Windows are stacked and typically symmetrical around a central entry door.
· Roof dormers and gable dormers are often an added element.
· Chimneys are typically located at the ridge and when at the gable, break the pediment
and project from the wall.
· The cornice and entry door surround are elaborately detailed. Simpler details of similar
size are acceptable.
· A water table course and a second floor level detail band are common with brick veneer.
ROOFS
Configuration
· There are many derivations of the Colonial Revival style; many roof forms may be
applied.
· A simple gabled main roof is the most common with a pitch between 7:12 and 12:12.
· Hipped roofs are also common and are generally of a lower pitch.
· Dormers in this style may vary greatly in size and detail.
· Dormers are common. They should be small gabled, hipped, or bowed.
· Dormers may be used across the roof centered above or between windows.
ENTRIES AND PORCHES
Configuration
· Small entry porches and full width front porches are common.
· Supports are substantial and are spaced a distance apart equal to or just less than their
height.
· Porches have highly detailed entry surrounds.
· Commonly pilasters are topped with entablatures, pediments, or broken pediments.
· Sidelights and transoms typically accompany the paneled entry door.
· Small entry porticos typically have lower pitched or flat roofs that may have a railing and
act as a deck to the second floor.
· The entry door is typically flush; however recessing the door provides a sheltered area.
WINDOWS AND DOORS
Configuration
· The windows that exemplify these styles are single or paired double-hung with equal
spaces between one another.
· For all Residential Structures: windows should be proportioned at least 1:2 (width to
height).
· Placement from the corner of the house should be at least the width of one window.
· First and second floor windows shall be stacked
· Accent windows may appear centered on the peak of a pediment over a balcony, portico,
or entry.
· For all Residential Structures: large fixed (“picture”) windows are allowed in
combination with tall narrow operable windows to either side.
· Bay and bow windows are popular accents.
· Shutters are common in this style.
· The front door may be off balanced if it is centered below a second story window.
MISCELLANEOUS
· Cornice trim to be exaggerated by use of a frieze board to make the transition from the
roof to the wall plane, may be decorated with dental or other type of molding.
· Other decorative elaborations are dealt with in other sections of the text.
· Wood pilasters may be located at corners vs. Corner board.
· Wood trim at window and door heads to be a wider dimension than the sill and jamb trim.
· Two piece trim or more elaborate trim at the head jamb is encouraged at elevations that
are prominent from the street.
GREEK REVIVAL - This style is characterized by a simple two-story rectangle with a gabled
or hipped low pitch roof with a heavy cornice line. Typically the entries are symmetrically
located and have covered porches. The entry doors have sidelights and transoms. Windows are
usually single elements stacked above each other.
EXTERIOR FACADES
Configuration
· The basic form is a two story rectangular box with either a smaller one and two story
boxes may be added at the rear or sides. The garage can be one of these added boxes to
the side or rear.
· This style is characterized by a simple two-story rectangle with a gabled or hipped low
pitch roof with a heavy cornice line.
· The front gable with a cross gable is also common.
· Entries are typically symmetrically located and have covered porches.
· Chimneys can be located on the exterior or interior to the house but are not a dominant
element.
· Corner trim can be enlarged to appear as a pilaster.
ROOFS
Configuration
· Shallow gable or a hipped roof ranging between a 5:12 and 7:12 pitch.
· Dormers in these styles are very common.
· Dormer roofs can be gabled, hipped, or bowed.
· Dormers can include fixed or double hung windows, and in the case of a broken pediment
the window may be arched.
ENTRIES AND PORCHES
Configuration
· Entrance doors have sidelights on both sides and the full transom or a broken transom
above.
· Full width front porches are possible on one-story side gables.
· On two story facades, a one story flat or low-pitched roof covers the porch.
· Supports are substantial and are spaced a distance apart equal to or just less than their
height.
· The entry doors have sidelights and transoms.
· Small entry porticos typically have flat roofs that may have a railing and can act as a deck
to the second floor.
· The foundations at the entrance porches will be solid masonry walls or solid piers below
columns with lattice in-fill of masonry or wood trim.
· Door assembly can be incorporated into an elaborate trim surround.
· Use square or round columns at entry porches proportioned with the building.
WINDOWS AND DOORS
Configuration
· The windows that exemplify these styles are double hung and singularly placed at equal
intervals between one another.
· They should be proportioned at least 1:2 (width to height).
· Placement from the corner of the house should be at least the width of one window.
· For visual clarity second story windows should be centered on the windows below and
should share the same width as the windows below.
· Small round or square windows may appear centered on the peak of a pediment over a
balcony, portico, or entry.
· A fairly strict pattern of “five windows over four and a door” is followed.
· Windows may appear more irregularly placed on secondary volumes and side elevations.
· Shutters are common in this style.
GEORGIAN AND ADAM - Popular styles in this part of the country both past and present.
One story versions and gambrel subtype, but the most common example is a two story
rectangular mass with a side facing gable. The entries have elaborate crowns and pilasters,
and typically a single row of transom glass. In the Georgian style the transom is flat while
the Adams style is characterized by a bow or arch. Windows occur singularly, they are
double hung, and have nine to twelve panes per sash. Decorative moldings typically
emphasize the cornice. The Adams style allows a more elaborate entry, which includes a
special window design above the entry door at the second floor.
EXTERIOR FACADE
Configuration
Georgian and Adams houses are simple rectangular side gabled or hipped two story
facades.
Windows are stacked and typically symmetrical around a central entry door.
Roof dormers are often an added element.
Chimneys are typically located at the ridge and when at the gable, do not break the
pediment.
The cornice and entry door surround are elaborately detailed. Simpler details of similar
size are acceptable
A water table course and a second floor level detail band are common with brick veneer.
ENTRIES AND PORCHES
Configuration
Small entry porches are common.
Both these styles have highly detailed entry surrounds.
Commonly pilasters are topped with entablatures, pediments, or broken pediments.
Sidelights and transoms typically accompany the paneled entry door.
Arched or elliptical transoms are a distinctive feature of the Adam style.
The entry door is typically flush, however recessing the door provides a sheltered area.
Porticos are common in the Adam style.
WINDOWS AND DOORS
Configuration
The windows that exemplify these styles are double hung and singularly placed at equal
intervals between one another.
They should be proportioned at least 1:2 (width to height).
Placement from the corner of the house should be at least the width of one window.
First and second floor windows shall be stacked
Accent windows may appear centered on the peak of a pediment over a balcony, portico,
or entry.
The Adam style differentiates itself by its’ arched entry transom and a unique window
above the entry.
Shutters are common in this style.
Fences and Walls:
The Master Plan for Belvedere works to develop a strong sense of community.
Accordingly fencing must be planned and constructed in a manner that enhances this
sense of community.
General Regulations:
· All fences must be approved prior to installation by the ASC.
· The finished side of fences must always face out from the lot
· Both sides of all fences must be painted or stained
· Chain link fencing is not allowed
· The preferred material for free-standing walls is brick with a minimum width of
8” and capped with a minimum overhang of 1” For Brick walls the brick used in
freestanding walls shall match the brick used in the primary residence.
· Retaining walls visible from the street shall be fronted with brick, stacked field
stone or other material matching main house foundation. Retaining walls not
visible from the street may be constructed of smooth finished concrete,
architectural block or pressure treated wood.
· Privacy fences are restricted to side and rear yards and may not exceed 8’ 6’ in
height.
Fences are required:
· On a side yard adjoining a neighborhood park, or public right of way a fence is
required along the lot property line to provide definition of public spaces (lots
separated from the park by a street or alley shall be exempt from this
requirement).
· To screen trash receptacles and air conditioner compressors from public view one
of the following must be constructed
o an approved fence of adequate height,
o suitable wall enclosure
o landscape screening
· Along the Right hand (As viewed from the primary street frontage) of the lot from
the rear corner of the primary residence to a point 5’ from the rear property line a
solid privacy fence of at least 6’ must be constructed. Lots with frontage greater
than 60’ may be exempted from this requirement on a case by case basis.
Fences are permitted:
· In front yards a lot a 3’ picket fence is permitted along the entire length of the lot
line. Whenever possible the fence should tie back into the front corner of the
primary residence. Gates or other openings are permitted for the front walk. The
post at the end of the fence shall be decorative and not less 6” x 6” with a
decorative cap. Walls of the same height, compatible with the masonry material
of the house, or an evergreen hedge are also acceptable for this use.
Pools and Fountains:
The ASC will review all proposed pools on an individual basis. Pool and equipment
enclosures must relate architecturally to the primary residence and other structures in
their placement, materials and architectural detailing. NO above ground pools or
inflatable bubble covers will be permitted.
Site Lighting:
All proposed site and landscape lighting shall be detailed on the Site and Landscape
Plans. Lighting shall be subtle in nature. No exterior lighting shall be permitted when in
the opinion of the ASC, it would create a nuisance to the adjoining property owners or
the community at large.
Gutters and downspouts:
Gutters and downspouts shall be designed to be compatible with the roof, fascia and
architectural design of the house.
b. LANDSCAPE AND STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
The general theme and focus of the landscape treatment throughout the project will be to
encourage the use of plant materials that are less reliant on the use of irrigation, fertilizers
and pesticides.
Street trees will be installed for all streets, boulevards and roundabouts as listed on the
Road Standards (Table 8) subject to utility placement, easements, buildings and sight
distance requirements. Plantings for the parkway and shoulder boulevard classifications
may be more informal and arranged in more natural shade and ornamental tree plantings.
Streetscape development for non-residential areas will be more urban in nature and the
guiding principles will be indicated in the following section.
The purpose of the Landscaping Standards is to:
1. Promote compatible and continuous landscape treatment throughout the Belvedere
community. The intent is to integrate the lots into the larger community and bridge the
gap between public and private spaces.
2. Promote the quality image of the community. Successful landscaping design provides
screening, enhances the architecture of the community, and sets a standard for high
quality development.
3. Ensure that the plant material proposed is compatible with the environmental conditions
in Albemarle County and is suitable for creating an aesthetically pleasing year-round
environment.
4. The Belvedere Architectural Standards Committee shall be solely responsible for
enforcement of all landscaping standards contained herein.
The Belvedere Landscape Palette Landscaping
All landscape materials and plantings must be approved by the ASC and should adhere to
the following design principles. Only plant material from the proposed Belvedere
Landscape Palette may be used in rights-of-ways, front setback zones, open spaces, and
back or side yards of lots adjoining public open spaces. Plants of similar characteristics
may be added to the list upon approval by the ASC. The Landscape Pallette shall be
developed by the Owner working in conjunction with a landscape architect and the ASC
prior to approval of the Final Site plan for Phase I.
The Natural Planting Approach:
Plant materials should complement the native vegetation and be compatible with
the ecological and climatic conditions in Albemarle County. Views can be
improved without extensive clearing of the native flora. The cutting of the forest
understory to open up views is permissible but should be kept to a minimum and
must be done within the constraints of all established conservation buffers noted
on the plat.
Landscaping efforts should concentrate planting efforts adjacent to the house,
especially near the entry. Ornamental plants, if used correctly, provide a transition
from the natural character of the site to more finished areas closer to the house.
For maximum appeal, mix textures and colors but keep the plan simple. A better
effect can be achieved from using quantities of a few species rather than a few
plants each of many species.
The planting plan itself shall sufficiently screen utility areas, break up the
foundation of the building, buffer driveway and parking areas adjacent to property
lines, and provide cover for areas disturbed during construction. Foundation
plantings shall screen foundations or spaces under decks.
Lawns
Sod is required in the front yard of all houses and between the curb and the
sidewalk, and is to be wrapped around the side yards for a minimum of 10 ft. Sod
should meet the side property lines as closely as possible to ensure a smooth
transition from one lot to another. Beds for existing trees can break the sod along
the property line. Any beds for hedges buffers, or shrub masses meeting the
property line must be approved by the ASC which will take into account the
consideration the landscaping on the adjoining lot. Corner lots are considered to
have two front yards. Sod is required along the side street from the curb to
sidewalk and from the sidewalk to the build-to line.
The area between the curb and the back of sidewalks and between the alley
pavement and the rear property line are considered part of the owner’s lot for
purposes of maintenance of lawn areas.
Street Trees:
Street trees with a minimum caliper of 2 ½” 1 foot above the ground are to be
planted on both sides of all streets and lanes in the right-of-way, with a spacing no
greater than 50 feet on center throughout the neighborhoods. Generally these
trees will be planted by the applicant once street and house construction is
completed on a given block. The timing of tree planting will be coordinated to
coincide with the growing season.
Tree Planting On Private Residential Lots
On any lot with more than 40’ of frontage, there shall be at least one tree, selected
from the Belvedere Landscape Palette, of at least 2 ½” planted in the front yard of
each lot. An additional tree of at least 1 ½” will required in the front yard for
each 25 feet of lot frontage (or fraction thereof) after the initial 50 feet of lot
frontage. Tree planted to satisfy this requirement should be located to complement
the street tree plantings. If a significant number of quality trees are retained in the
front of the lot then this requirement may be reduced or waived.
Minimum Planting Requirements:
A minimum plant quantity chart is provided below to assist the owner/builder in
developing landscape plans. These quantities are minimums for the front of
houses, additional plants beyond these numbers are encouraged.
TABLE 7
MINIMUM PLANTING REQUIREMENTS
Lot Width Deciduous
Trees
Evergreen
Tree
Shrubs
60-100’ 3 3 30
50’-60’2 1 20
40’-49’ 1 1 15
30’39’ 1 10
< 30’ 1 5
All disturbed areas must be re-vegetated with sod, grass, groundcover, or shrub
masses. Homes with plant strips between the houses and the driveway are
required to plant groundcover selected from the Belvedere Landscape Palette.
Minimum Plant Sizes at Time of Installation:
Tree Size
Deciduous 2 ½” caliper (well branched)
Evergreen 6’ height (full)
Shrubs 3 gallon container
Landscape Specifications:
The following specifications are the minimum standards that are acceptable for
the installation of plant material in the residential neighborhoods:
1. The contractor shall be responsible for site inspection prior to landscape
construction and installation in order to acquaint himself with the existing
conditions. The Contractor shall be responsible for locating all existing
underground utilities prior to beginning construction. Any planting
conflict arising from existing utility locations shall be brought to the
attention of the Owner.
2. The Contractor shall be responsible for providing positive drainage at 2%
minimum in all planted areas.
3. The Contractor shall verify plant count from the plan, and shall provide
and install all plant materials shown on the approved plan. The plant
schedule provided is for the Contractor’s reference only; quantities shall
be verified from the approved plan.
4. The Contractor shall guarantee all plant materials for 1 year from the date
of planting.
5. The Owner or his designated agent shall approve any changes in plant
material.
6. All plant material shall be balled and burlapped or container grown and
shall be well formed, vigorous, growing specimens with growth typical of
the variety specified and free from injurious insects and diseases.
7. All trees and shrubs shall be installed as indicated on the approved
landscape plan.
8. All plants and beds shall be mulched with a 3 inch layer of mulch
SEMINOLE TRAIL FIRE STATION WAIVERS
MAY 1, 2013 BOS
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP201300009 Seminole Trail Fire Station – Zoning
Ordinance Waivers
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of the following sections of the Zoning
Ordinance:
1. Section 4.2 Critical Slopes
2. Section 21.7(c) Buffer zone adjacent to
residential and rural areas districts
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Benish, Ms. Ray, and Ms. Roberge
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE: May 1, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department is located at 3055 Berkmar Drive, approximately 850 feet south of the
intersection with Rio Road [631]. It was built in 1980 and has served the Seminole Trail area of the County since that
time. This application is a r equest for approval of a major site plan amendment to build a 10,500 sf addition to the fire
station, including two additional bays. It includes the building addition, which will replace a portion of site parking, and
access reconfiguration to separate emergency and non-emergency traffic. The applicant is requesting two special
exceptions: one for disturbance of small areas of man-made critical slopes, and one for disturbance of the buffer zone
adjacent to residential districts. Staff is recommending approval of both waiver requests.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
1. CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER
The proposed development will require the disturbance of critical slopes . A modification to allow critical slopes
disturbance is necessary before the site plan can be approved by staff. The applicant has submitted a request and
justification for the waiver, and this request has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the
critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.1(a) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the building site, and thus any
improvements and earth-disturbing activity, be free from critical slopes. Section 4.2.5(b) allows the Agent to waive this
restriction when the slopes were created through development pursuant to an approved Site Plan . However, the waiver
must now be approved by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Sections 4.2.1(b) and 33.5.
The critical slopes in the area of this request appear to be man-made and created pursuant to the original approved site
plan for this parcel. Staff is recommending approval of this waiver request. This recommendation for approval is based
on staff’s assessment which finds that the proposed disturbance substantially meets the requirements listed in Section
4.2.5(b):
Review of the request by Engineering staff:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The critical slopes proposed as being disturbed are man-made slopes of 2:1 that were created when the fire station was
constructed. There are three critical slope areas on site; the first critical slope is al ong Berkmar Drive, the second is
located in between the fire station and parking lot, and the third is behind the fire station. The applicant requests to dist urb
these critical slopes for a proposed building addition, for an access to separate the emergenc y and non-emergency traffic,
and for a proposed mechanical pad.
SEMINOLE TRAIL FIRE STATION WAIVERS
MAY 1, 2013 BOS
2
Areas Acres
Total site 1.785 acres approximately
Critical slopes 0.18 acres 10% of site
Critical slopes disturbed .08 acres 44% of critical slopes
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18-4.2:
“movement of soil and rock”
The site will require proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization to prevent any
movement of soil. The elevation of the existing building is much lower than the existing parking lot. The pro posed
building addition will cut into the existing topography and retaining walls will be required in between the parking lot and
the building addition.
“excessive stormwater runoff”
The critical slope runoff located along Berkmar Drive is currently draining into a culvert under the existing entrance
road and routed to a vegetative area south of the fire station. The disturbance of this critical slope and the additional
impervious entrance road will increase the runoff. The proposed building addition will also increase the runoff. A
stormwater management analysis will determine if the size of the existing culvert needs to be increased and if erosion
control measures are warranted in the vegetative area.
“siltation”
Inspection and bonding by the County wi ll ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization and
maintenance will ensure long term stability.
“loss of aesthetic resource”
The critical slopes on site are manmade and were approved on a site plan for the existing fire station.
“septic effluent”
The proposed site will not release any septic effluent to the surrounding environment. The site is serviced by public
sewer.
The critical slope along Berkmar Drive is exempt from the critical slopes waiver due to no reasonable alternativ e locations
for an additional entrance. The critical slope in between the fire station and the parking lot are also exempt provided that
retaining walls are designed for areas with an elevation difference of 6’ or greater. The critical slope behind the Fir e
Station will have minimal disturbance for a mechanical pad. I recommend approval of the disturbance of these manmade
critical slopes.
Review of the request by Planning staff:
The agent may grant a waiver if he or she finds that:
1. The property is not identified in the open space plan as one having any protected resources and a field inspection
has confirmed that there are no significant or critical features on the property identified for protection in the open
space plan;
2. There is no reasonable alternative that would eliminate or reduce the disturbance of critical slopes;
3. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the program authority of an erosion and
sediment control plan, regardless of whether the area disturbed is less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet;
and
4. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the county engineer of a plan that describes
how the movement of soil and rock, stormwater runoff, siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water, the loss
of aesthetic resources identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan and, in the event of the
failure of a treatment works and subsurface drainfield, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, will be mitigated
through design, construction techniques, revegetation, stormwater management and other best management
practices.
Based on the County Engineer’s comments, staff finds that this request meets the criteria note d above. These slopes are
not identified on the Open Space Plan and most are man-made. There are no concerns that would cause staff to object to
the approval of the proposed critical slope disturbance request. Staff is recommending approval of this critical slope
waiver request.
2. BUFFER ZONE WAIVER
The proposed development will require the disturbance of the buffer zone. A modification to allow this buffer zone
disturbance is necessary before the site plan can be approved by staff. The applicant has submitted a request and
SEMINOLE TRAIL FIRE STATION WAIVERS
MAY 1, 2013 BOS
3
justification for the waiver, and this request has been reviewed against the buffer zone regulations. Section 21.7(c) of the
Zoning Ordinance requires that no construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than
twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district and that screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9.
Section 21.7(c)1 allows the commission to waive this prohibition as follows:
The commission may waive the prohibition of construction activity, grading or the clearing of ve getation in the buffer in
a particular case where the developer or subdivider demonstrates that grading or clearing is necessary or would result
in an improved site design, provided that: (i) minimum screening requirements are met and (ii) existing landsca ping in
excess of minimum requirements is substantially restored.
However, the waiver must now be approved by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18
Section 33.5.
Description of proposed buffer disturbance:
The site currently has a portion of existing parking lot and a dumpster pad within this buffer zone. The waiver request
includes the following items:
Disturbance of the 20’ buffer zone at the back of the parking lot in close proximity to the location of the new ADA
compliant parking spaces. The extent of the disturbance would be removal of the existing 10’ x 10’ concrete
dumpster pad and a portion of the parking lot within the buffer area, as well as the subsequent minor grading and
seeding to repair the depression in this area from their removal.
A small corner section (approx. 12 square feet) of new concrete sidewalk that extends into the 20’ buffer zone at
the location where the ADA compliant parking spaces connect to this sidewalk. This allows users of the ADA
parking spaces direct access to a sidewalk route into the building.
Existing fencing and screening vegetation are present within the buffer area, but supplementary plantings are also
proposed to provide additional screening and to enhance the site.
Staff finds that the disturbance within the buffer will result in an improved site design, and supplemental landscaping will
be provided to enhance the buffer area. Based on the review above, there are no concerns that would cause staff to
object to the approval of the proposed buffer zone disturbance request. Staff is recommending approval of this buffer
zone waiver request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver and the buffer zone waiver.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN ALTERNATE
TO ACT FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ON THE
BLUE RIDGE JUVENILE DETENTION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna and
Green (“Participating Jurisdictions”) established the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission
(“Commission”) in 1998 by a Concurrent Resolution of the governing bodies; and
WHEREAS, the Concurrent Resolution established the powers and responsibilities of
the Commission and the respective rights and obligations of the Participating Jurisdictions for
the Commission; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2 of the Concurrent Resolution, one Commission
member from each Participating Jurisdiction is the Participating Jurisdiction’s current county
administrator, county executive or city manager or their alternates designated as permitted by
state law; and
WHEREAS, after consultation with the Chief Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations District Court, the Board wishes to designate the Assistant County Executive for
Community Services to act as the alternate for the County Executive to attend Blue Ridge
Juvenile Detention Commission meetings and vote in place of the County Executive in his
absence; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that approval of an alternate for the County Executive will
improve and facilitate the efficient operations of the County Executive’s Office and the Blue
Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby approves the designation of the Assistant County Executive for Community
Services as the alternate to attend and vote in place of the County Executive at Blue Ridge
Juvenile Detention Commission meetings when the County Executive is absent from such
meetings.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of
a Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a vote of ______
to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Supervisors
From: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary to Planning Commission
Date: May 1, 2013
Re: Planning Commission Annual Report
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia says that, among its duties, the Planning Commission
shall, “5. Make . . . an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the
commission and the status of planning within its jurisdiction.” Attached you will find a report
summarizing the activities of the commission in 2012 accepted by the Planning Commission at
its April 2, 2013 meeting. Hopefully you will find this information of interest and I am more
than happy to answer any particular questions you might have.
View Report
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
2012 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia stipulates that the local Planning Commission shall “make . . .
an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the Commission and the status of
planning within the jurisdiction”. This report is a brief summary of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission’s membership and activity during 2012.
COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT SERVED
Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice-Chair Jack Jouett 1/10 - 12/31/12
Don Franco Rio 3/4/09 - 12/31/12
Cal Morris, Chair Rivanna 1/04 - 12/31/12
Ed Smith Samuel Miller 1/10 - 12/31/12
Rick Randolph Scottsville 1/12 - 12/31/12
Thomas Loach White Hall 1/08 - 12/31/12
Bruce Dotson At-Large 1/12 - 12/31/12
Julia Monteith University of Va. (Non-voting) 1/06 - 12/31/1
2012 MEETING AGENDA SUMMARY
# Meetings = ___32___
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS # Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
- - - -
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA) 9 7 - 2
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA) 1 1 - -
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP) 1 1 - -
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA) 8 7 - 1
Special Use Permit (SP) 42 34 1 7
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP) 3 2 - 1
Final Site Plan (SDP) 4 1 2 1
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 1 1 - -
Final Sub Plat (SUB) - - - -
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP) - - - -
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 1 - 1 -
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB) - - - -
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD) 7 7 - -
CONSENT AGENDA
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP) - - N/A N/A
Final Site Plan (SDP) - - N/A N/A
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 1 1 N/A N/A
Final Sub Plat (SUB) - - N/A N/A
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP) - - N/A N/A
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 2 2 N/A N/A
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB) - - N/A N/A
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD) - - N/A N/A
PC Minutes 34 34 N/A N/A
Other 6 6 N/A N/A
WORK SESSION
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
20 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA) 5 N/A N/A N/A
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA) - N/A N/A N/A
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP) - N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA) - N/A N/A N/A
Special Use Permit (SP) - N/A N/A N/A
Other 1 N/A N/A N/A
2012 HIGHLIGHTS
The CPA considered was the Comprehensive Plan Review
ZTAs considered included Industrial Uses, Water/Sewer Regulations, Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging,
Highway Commercial Wall Signs, Off-site Signs and Ministerial and Legislative Review Process
Improvements
The STA considered was Water/Sewer Regulations
The CCP considered was the Firearms Training Facility at the Keene Landfill Site
ZMAs considered included Albemarle Place (aka Stonefield), Estes Park, Greenbrier Commons, Three
Notch’d Center, Albrecht Place and 5th Street-Avon Center
SPs considered included Four Seasons Learning Center, David Brown Auto Detailing and Repair,
Greenbrier Emergency Hospital, Ivy Forum, Congregation Beth Israel Cemetery, New Hope Community
Church, Panorama Events, Pine Knot Historical Center, Community Christian Academy, Monu Park
Soccer Fields, Southwood Boys and Girls Club, Regents School, Daylily Preschool, Castle Hill Cider,
Howardsville Camping and Canoe Livery, Kenridge and a number of wireless facilities (towers)
SDPs considered included Estes Park, Ivy Fire Station at the Kirtley Warehouse, the Firearms Training
Facility at the Keene Landfill Site, Boar’s Head Sports Club, Dunlora Forest and several wireless facilities
(towers)
SUBs considered included The Preserve at Glenmore and Old Trail
Other matters covered included AFD additions and renewals, the CIP and the Regional Livability Project
Goals, including joint meetings of the County and City Planning Commissions
Return to memo
Page 1 of 4
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
May 2013
Special Issues
VDOT is working with the county for the upcoming SSYP public hearing.
Preliminary Engineering
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 53 Safety Project – Shoulder
Widening 0.4 Mi E. of Monticello Loop
Road
Advertisement Construction February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project – Shoulder
Widening 0.06 Mi E. of Monticello
Loop Road
Advertisement Construction February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project – Intersection
Improvements at Route 20 Advertisement Construction February 2013
Route 708, Dry Bridge Road,
Bridge Replacement over RR Right of Way Advertisement May 2013
Route 53 Safety Project – Intersection
Improvements at Route 729 Right of Way Advertisement October 2013
Route 616, Black Cat Road,
Bridge Replacement over RR Design Public Hearing Right of Way – May
2013 March 2014
Route 677, Broomley Road,
Bridge Replacement over RR Design Public Hearing Right of Way –
August 2013 December 2014
Route 637, Dick Woods Road,
Bridge Replacement over Ivy Creek Design Public Hearing Right of Way –
August 2013 December 2014
Route 29 Widening, Ashwood to
Hollymeade Town Center Survey Preliminary Design
– Spring 2013 December 2015
Route 250, Bridge replacement over
Little Ivy Creek Survey Preliminary Design January 2018
Route 774, Bear Creek Road, Unpaved
Road -- Project Scoping –
2016 November 2019
Route 703, Pocket Lane, Unpaved
Road -- Project Scoping –
2016 November 2019
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE:
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Best Buy Ramp Design Public Hearing Right of Way –
Summer 2013 November 2014
Page 2 of 4
Construction Activities
Route 29 Bypass (FO)0029-002-844
Scope: Design and construction 6.2 miles of highway between Route 250 to north of South
Fork of the Rivanna River.
Next major milestone: Submit Environmental Assessment to FHWA
Contract Completion Date: September 16, 2016
Only activities authorized being performed to include IJR/Traffic Studies for northern and
southern termini. If FONSI issued by FHWA, remaining PE activities (survey, geotechnical
exploration, environmental delineations, etc.) as well as Final design, RW & CN activities can
be initiated. Additional Public Involvement scheduled: Citizen Information meeting tentatively
April/May. 2013 Design Public Hearing tentatively June/July 2013.
McIntire Interchange 0250-104-103, PE101
Scope: Construct Interchange at McIntire Road and Rte 250
Next Major Milestone: Utility Relocations
Contract Completion date: July 2, 2015.
Project Construction started on March 4, 2013.
Guardrail Repair GR07-967-096, N501
Scope: Guardrail repairs – on call – District wide.
Next Major Milestone: Contract Renewal – 2nd term
Contract Completion date: July 1, 2013.
McCormick Road 0302-002-152,B650
Scope: Superstructure replacement.
Next Major Milestone: Pre-construction meeting, April 18th. Road Closure, May 20th.
Contract Completion: July 31, 2013.
Millington Road 0665-002-6142
Scope: Superstructure replacement, State Forces.
Next Major Milestone: Road Closure, June 10th.
Proposed Completion: July 31, 2013.
McIntire Road U000-104-102, C501
Scope: Construct New Two Lane Road, Bridge and Pedestrian Path.
Next major Milestone: Place stone for bike trail and construct final paving.
Contract Completion: October 15, 2013
Surface Treatment Schedule
Scope: Surface Treat various roads.
Next Major Milestone: Contractor planning to begin work in Albemarle County in May.
Contract Completion: October 31, 2013 (Contractor should complete work in Albemarle
County in June)
Page 3 of 4
Slurry Seal Schedule
Scope: Slurry Seal various roads.
Next Major Milestone: Begin work. Contractor plans to begin work in Mill Creek around mid -
April.
Contract Completion: October 31, 2013.
Plant Mix Schedule
Scope: Plant mix overlay of various roads.
Next Major Milestone: Begin work. Contractor plans to begin work around mid-April, Rte 29
south of Charlottesville.
Contract Completion: December 6, 2013
Rte 53 HSIP Projects (NFO)0053-002-S30, S31, S32, M501
Scope: Curve improvements on Route 53.
Next Major Milestone: Bids were opened March 27, 2013. Recommendation for contract
award is pending.
Contract Completion: September 25, 2013
Traffic Engineering Studies
Completed
Route 672 Blufton Road: Speed study completed; resolution completed; sign installation
pending. VDOT Study Number- 003-0672-20130115-011
Route 6 @ Porters Road, Route 627: School zone/school flash review; review completed;
Residency advised of applicable TE memo. VDOT Study Number - 003-0006-20130221-010
Route 20, Scottsville: School bus stop ahead signing review; Report completed; sign installation
pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0020-20130305-010
Route 20 @ Route 250: Intersection pavement marking review; Report completed; pavement
marking installation pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0250-20130301-006
Route 684, Half Mile Branch Road @ King Family Vineyards: Signing review; Report
completed; No additional signage recommended. VDOT Study Number - 003-0684-20130305-
010
Route 692, Plank Road: School bus stop ahead signing review; Report completed; Sign
installation pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0692-20130305-010
Route 676, Tilman Road @ Route 250: Safety review; Report completed; pavement marking
installation pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0676-20130305-007
Under Review
Route 743, Hydraulic Road and Route 29: Safety review of left turns along hydraulic and u-
turns; draft complete; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0743-20130305-007
Route 1428, Huntington Road, and Route 651, Free State Road: Multi-Way Stop review;
pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-1428-20130319-023
Route 250 and Route 20: Crosswalk review; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-1116-
20130403-020
Route 29 and Route 649, Airport Rd: Signing review; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-
0029-20130403-010
I-64 E @ Route 20 on ramps: Signing review; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0020-
20130408-010
Route 29 @ Britts Mtn. Hollow: Signing review; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0029-
20130410-010
Page 4 of 4
Maintenance Activities
Limbing Operations on various Secondary Routes
Machining/Grading/Applying stone to non-hard surfaces roadways
Pipe Cleaning and Ditching Operations
Pothole Patching Operations
Debris Removal from March 6th Storm
Joel DeNunzio Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2013 3rd Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non-
cash proffers for January through March, 2013
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Graham and Higgins; and
Mses. McCulley, Allshouse, L., Ragsdale and Harris
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 1, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a quarterly report on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, the report
has been expanded to also include updates on non-cash proffers. The Board received the last quarterly proffer report
on February 2, 2013, which included information on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non-cash proffers for
October through December, 2012. This report includes all proffer activity for the third quarter of FY 2013 (January-
March 2013). The next quarterly report will be on the Board’s August 7, 2013 agenda.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
Proffers Activity for Fiscal Year 2013 Third Quarter (January-March, 2013)
A. New Proffered Revenue: There were no rezoning requests approved this quarter that provided new cash
proffers.
B. Total Proffered Revenue: The total proffered revenue is $43,232.742.20. This reflects annual adjustments to
anticipated proffer revenue (not received yet obligated) from proffers in which annual adjustments were
proffered.
C. 3rd Quarter Cash Revenue: The County received a total of $1,046,452.98 from existing cash proffers during
this quarter from the following developments:
Development Amount Intended Purpose
Stonefield $909,000.00 CIP
Livengood (Glenmore S5) $39,508.28 CIP
Livengood (Glenmore S5) $6,016.54 Affordable Housing
Leake (Glenmore) $18,755.00 CIP
Leake (Glenmore) $2,952.00 Affordable Housing
Old Trail $22,000.00 CIP-Crozet Schools/Parks
Wickham Pond II $4,500.00 CIP-Crozet
Belvedere $4,000.00 Affordable Housing
Avinity $39,721.16 CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 5
TOTAL $1,046,452.98
D. 3rd Quarter Expenditures: There were no appropriations or expenditures this quarter.
Current Available Funds: As of March 31, 2013, the available proffered cash on-hand is $3,167,592.78 (including
interest earnings on proffer revenue received). Some of these funds were proffered for specific projects while others
may be used for general projects within the CIP.
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2013 3rd Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report
May 1, 2013
Page 2
Of the available proffered cash on-hand, $1,122,620.64 is currently appropriated (See Attachment A for details). The
net cash balance is $2,044,972.14. Attachment B provides information on how the net cash may be used for future
appropriations.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue to address the impacts from development and they support the
funding of important County projects which would otherwise be funded through general tax revenue. Using cash
proffer funding for current or planned FY13–FY17 CIP projects builds capacity in the CIP by freeing up funding for
other projects. In addition, non-cash proffers provide improvements that might otherwise need to be funded by general
tax revenue.
Community Development Department and Office of Management and Budget staff monitor proffer funds on an on-
going basis to ensure that associated projects not currently in the CIP move forward and to ensure that funding is
appropriated to projects before any proffer deadlines.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This summary is provided for information only and no action is required at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
A- March 31, 2013 Summary of Cash Proffer Funds Balances
B-Net Available Proffer Funds Summary and Use of Funds
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
FUND # PROFFER NAMETOTAL PROFFERED REVENUETOTAL FUNDS RECEIVEDTOTAL INTEREST EARNINGSTOTALEXPENDITURES(Transfer to Projects)CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSAPPROPRIATED FUNDSAPPROPRIATED INTEREST EARNINGS Projects/$REMAINING AVAILABLE FUNDSREMAINING AVAIBLE INTEREST EARNINGSNET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSACTIVE8547ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD$2,610,000.00$1,284,000.00$112.31$0.00$1,284,112.31$375,000.00$0.00Seminole Trail Vol. Fire. Dept. Ren/Add$909,000.00$112.31$909,112.318548AVINITY$1,703,712.44$235,936.96$37.70$0.00$235,974.66$0.00$0.00 $235,936.96$37.70$235,974.668534AVON PARK$59,000.00$59,000.00$5,735.35$0.00$64,735.35$59,000.00$0.00Avon Street Sidewalks$0.00$5,735.35$5,735.358536BELVEDERE STATION$400,250.00$115,500.00$845.56($58,009.66)$58,335.90$0.00$0.00 $58,250.00$85.90$58,335.908531ECKERD PHARMACY$6,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008520GLENMORE$893,000.00$752,000.00$129,929.81($875,364.10)$6,565.71$0.00$0.00 $1,000.00$5,565.71$6,565.718521GLENMORE$569,000.00$331,000.00$56,331.17($375,000.00)$12,331.17$0.00$0.00 $2,300.00$10,031.17$12,331.178523GRAYROCK$62,500.00$62,500.00$13,307.00$0.00$75,807.00$62,500.00$12,380.00Crozet Regional Stormwater Management $0.00$927.00$927.008527HOLLYMEAD AREA C$210,000.00$169,523.75$5,202.95($112,442.36)$62,284.34$59,523.75$2,741.04Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$19.55$19.558528HOLLYMEAD AREA D$481,000.00$480,999.68$23,868.45($473,712.00)$31,156.13$20,085.18$11,061.19Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$9.76$9.768545HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1$609,000.00$109,000.00$588.49($28,506.62)$81,081.87$30,733.69$322.73Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$50,000.00$25.45$50,025.458572LEAKE (Glenmore) 3-CIP$2,430,203.86$37,510.00$0.00$0.00$37,510.00$0.00$0.00$37,510.00$0.00$37,510.008573LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing$0.00$5,904.00$0.00$0.00$5,904.00$0.00$0.00$5,904.00$0.00$5,904.008544LIBERTY HALL $137,600.00$108,800.00$231.41$0.00$109,031.41$102,400.00$199.19Crozet Streetscapes Phase II; Crozet Library$6,400.00$32.22$6,432.228574LIVENGOOD$980,274.47$45,524.82$0.00$0.00$45,524.82$0.00$0.00 $45,524.82$0.00$45,524.828529MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE$346,250.00$419,144.85$10,475.72$0.00$429,620.57$0.00$0.00 $419,144.85$10,475.72$429,620.578538NORTH POINTE$460,000.00$400,000.00$28,810.93($420,359.50)$8,451.43$0.00$8,451.43Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$0.00$0.008537OLD TRAIL VILLAGE$2,328,000.00$145,000.00$1,889.82($75,854.29)$71,035.53$24,000.00$16.44Crozet E S ADA Entrance Ramp/Crozet Greenway$47,000.00$19.09$47,019.098546POPLAR GLEN II$155,600.00$155,600.00$168.92($33,016.05)$122,752.87$89,600.00$82.95Crozet Library$33,006.76$63.16$33,069.928533STILLFRIED LANE$78,000.00$78,000.00$6,358.08($83,379.00)$979.08$0.00$962.07Ivy Fire Station; Crozet Library$0.00$17.01$17.018525UVA RESEARCH PARK$78,178.00$78,718.00$899.76($79,500.00)$117.76$0.00$117.72Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$0.04$0.048535WESTERN RIDGE$5,000.00$5,159.12$857.46($5,000.00)$1,016.58$159.12$857.46Crozet Library$0.00$0.00$0.008541WESTHALL (1.1)$90,000.00$91,000.00$2,856.79$0.00$93,856.79$51,000.00$2,728.70Crozet Streetscapes Phase II $40,000.00$128.09$40,128.098542WESTHALL (1.2)$30,000.00$37,000.00$925.91($7,000.00)$30,925.91$10,000.00$896.30Crozet Streetscapes Phase II $20,000.00$29.61$20,029.618543WESTHALL (3.3)$3,000.00$3,000.00$167.32$0.00$3,167.32$0.00$0.00 $3,000.00$167.32$3,167.328540WICKHAM POND$345,161.67$292,622.90$4,110.04($59,161.00)$237,571.94$194,853.66$2,948.02Crozet Streetscapes Phase II; Crozet Library$39,704.66$65.60$39,770.268549WICKHAM POND II$405,000.00$57,725.81$16.52$0.00$57,742.33$0.00$0.00 $57,725.81$16.52$57,742.33FUTURE05th STREET AVON 3$250,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0005th STREET AVON 4$100,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0005th STREET AVON 12$100,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000AVON PARK II$461,368.15$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000BARGAMIN PARK$18,200.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000BLUE RIDGE CO-HOUSING$323,556.88$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000CASCADIA$405,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000ESTES PARK$754,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000FONTANA PHASE 4C$780,635.81$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000HADEN PLACE$82,500.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A2$16,926,027.01$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000NGIC EXPANSION$1,405,988.98$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000OAKLEIGH FARM$1,488,112.94$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000PATTERSON SUBDIVISION$145,611.91$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000RIVANNA VILLAGE @ GLENMORE$1,163,876.08$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000WILLOW GLEN$2,907,800.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.00COMPLETED8530ALBEMARLE PLACE$100,000.00$100,000.00$3,666.41($103,666.41)$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.008526AVEMORE$50,000.00$50,000.00$1,286.43($51,286.43)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008539GREENBRIER$9,334.00$9,334.00$81.72($9,415.72)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008532HOLLYMEAD AREA B$50,000.00$50,000.00$1,521.85($51,521.85)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008524SPRINGRIDGE$100,000.00$100,000.00$2,214.97($102,214.97)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008522STILL MEADOWS$135,000.00$135,000.00$17,220.78($152,220.78)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.00TOTAL$43,232,742.20$6,004,503.89$319,719.63($3,156,630.74)$3,167,592.78$1,078,855.40$43,765.24$1,122,620.64$2,011,407.86$33,564.28$2,044,972.14CASH PROFFERSAPPROPRIATED PROFFERS SUMMARYNET CASH PROFFERS
NET AVAILABLE PROFFER FUNDS SUMMARY AND USE OF FUNDS 4/11/13FUND # PROFFER NAMENET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDS PROFFERED USE OF FUNDS RECOMMENDED/POTENTIAL USE OF FUNDS8547 ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD $909,112.31 CIP-GeneralCIP-General FY13 New Library/Storage FacilityHydraulic Sidewalk8548 AVINITY$235,974.66 CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 5CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 58534AVON PARK$5,735.35CIP-Neighborhoods 4-Pedestrian ImprovementsMust use for specific project8536BELVEDERE STATION$58,335.90Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8520GLENMORE$6,565.71School CIP/Other CIP-GlenmoreSchool CIP/Other CIP-Glenmore8521GLENMORE$12,331.17CIP-250/Glenmore-TransportationRt. 250 Pedestrian Crossings or Shadwell Interchange8523GRAYROCK$927.00Interest/Jarmans Gap Road ImprovementsCIP-Crozet Project TBD8545HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1$50,025.45CIP-Hollymead-Greenway connection/Pedestrian Crossing OnlyGreenway connection/Pedestrian Crossing8572LEAKE (Glenmore) 3-CIP$37,510.00CIP-General8573LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing$5,904.00Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8544LIBERTY HALL $6,432.22CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Greenway Project8574LIVENGOOD-CIP$39,508.28CIP-General CIP-General-TBD8574LIVENGOOD-Affordable Housing$6,016.54Affordable HousingAffordable Housing Project TBD8529MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE$429,620.57CIP-I-64/250 Improvements and TransitFY14 Transportation Projects and Revenue Sharing8537OLD TRAIL VILLAGE$47,019.09CIP-Crozet Parks/SchoolsCIP-Crozet (Parks/Schools TBD)8546POPLAR GLEN II$33,069.92CIP-Affordable HousingAffordable Housing Project TBD8533STILLFRIED LANE$17.01CIP-General or Affordable HousingProject TBD8541WESTHALL (1.1)$40,128.09Eastern Avenue in Crozet/After 10 years Crozet CIPCIP-Crozet (Transportation Projects)8542WESTHALL (1.2)$20,029.61CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Greenway Project8543WESTHALL (3.3)$3,167.32Greenway bridge in WesthallMust use for specific project8540 WICKHAM POND $39,770.26 CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Greenway Project CIP-Crozet Project TBD8549 WICKHAM POND II $57,742.33 CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Project TBDTOTAL$2,044,972.14
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County Grant Application Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Summary of grant applications submitted and grants
received from February 15, 2013 through April15, 2013
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis and White, and Ms. Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 1, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to the County’s Grants Policy and associated procedures, staff provides periodic reports to the Board on the
County’s application for and use of grants.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Grant awards provide funding to support a variety of projects, the majority of which support Goal 5, Ensure the health
and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
The attached Grants Report (Attachment A) provides a brief description of five grant applications submitted by the
County between February15, 2013 and April15, 2013. Also attached is a report on the use of the Grant Matching Fund
(Attachment B) which was established by the Board in FY 12 with a $100,000 appropriation. To date, over $2 million
in grant funds has been received and the County has provided match funds totaling $86,516.
All grant funds and matching funds are subject to appropriation by the Board prior to the expenditure of any funds
awarded to the County.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is for information only.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Grant Report
B – Matching Funds Report
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
GRANT REPORT ACTIVITY from February 15, 2013 through April 15, 2013
Applications were made for the following grants
VA Dept of Criminal
Justice Services (DCJS)
Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant
Federal
Continuation Grant
$71,250 $3,750
YMCA
Social
Services These grant funds will be used to fund an ongoing after
school program for elementary school children who live
at the Wilton Farm Subdivision in Albemarle County.
The program will be housed at the Broadus Memorial
Baptist Church located near Wilton Farm on Rt. 20. The
Charlottesville/Albemarle YMCA will provide the
teachers and staff for the program and the program will
include the evidence based PATHS (Promoting
Alternative Thinking Strategies) curriculum.
Va Commission of the
Arts
Local Government
Challenge Grant
State
$2,500 $2,500
Appropriation to
Piedmont Arts
Council
OMB The County plans to use the grant funds, as it has since
FY 88/89, to provide local funds to arts organizations
identified in the FY13/14 recommended budget. This
year the organization identified is Piedmont Council for
the Arts.
DCJS State Justice Assistance
Grant
Federal
Continuation Grant
$28,500 $1,500
County
Matching Funds
Police These grant funds will be used for evidence collection,
management equipment, and related training. The
equipment has long-term maintenance expenses. In
addition, the mobile device evidence recovery system
has a $2,900 annual maintenance fee for necessary
updates and additions that may have to be added to the
PD's IT budget in the future.
Va Division of Motor
Vehicles
Highway Safety Project
Grant
Federal
$39,080 $19,540
$2,512
Department
Budget
$17,028 In-kind
Police These grant funds will be used to fund 800 hours of
traffic safety overtime activities and 1 in-car camera
system for speed enforcement
Va Department of
Emergency
Management (VDEM)
Local Emergency
Management Grant
Program
Federal
$25,481 $25,481
Department
Budget
ECC VDEM disburses funds on a reimbursement basis to
support the locality's efforts to develop and maintain a
Comprehensive Emergency management Program.
These funds will support ECC Coordinator costs.
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT B
GRANT MATCHING FUNDS REPORT
27-Feb-13
Department Granting Entity Grant Number Grant Award Match Funds Purpose
Fire & Rescue FEMA EMW-2012-FO-00667 107,565$ 23,391$ Training for Volunteers
Fire & Rescue FEMA EMW-2011-FH-00313 1,261,305$ 42,270$ Hire and Equip new firefighters
Police DCJS 12-B2149AD09 46,789$ 2,148$ Improve Evidence Collection
Police DCJS 13-A2720JB10 35,995$ 4,000$
Risk/need assessment for gang
prevention and intervention
Police DCJS 13-C2149AD11 40,725$ 2,144$ Surveillance and monitoring equip
Police DMV 154AL2012521934571 40,000$ 2,203$ Speed/DUI Enforcement
Sheriff DMV SC2013533845099 10,320$ 3,360$ Selective Speed Enforcement
Airport DOT 500,000$ 7,000$ Expanded Air Service
TOTAL 2,042,699$ 86,516$
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Illegal Hunting and Trespassing Enforcement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Presentation of illegal hunting and trespassing
enforcement efforts during the 2012-2013 hunting season
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Brown, Sellers, and Jenkins, G.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 1, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Police Department (PD) received a large number of citizen complaints regarding illegal hunting, trespassers and spot
lighting from the roadway throughout the 2012/2013 hunting season. The majority of complaints came from southern
Albemarle County. Additionally, many citizens contacted Board members to voice their concerns regarding community
safety. As a result, on January 9, 2013, the Board appropriated $12,000 to the PD for enhanced illegal hunting and
trespassing enforcement efforts. Working closely with the Virginia Game Wardens, the PD provided uniformed patrols
and undercover operations in the most impacted areas. Additional efforts included hunter education community forums.
The purpose of this informational item is to provide an overview of the illegal hunting enforcement operation (Attachment
A).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal #5: Ensure the Health and Safety of the Community
DISCUSSION:
There were 167,340 hunting licenses purchased in Albemarle County during the 2012/2013 hunting season, well
exceeding the population of the County. This number of hunters indicates that Albemarle County is considered a
hunting destination, which makes prevention and education efforts complex. The funding appropriated to address
illegal hunting this past season made a significant impact in enhancing community safety in targeted areas of the
County. Without the additional funding and the assistance of the Virginia Game Wardens, staffing limitations would
have prevented proactive measures to address the issues of trespassing, illegal hunting and spot lighting. Officers
assigned to the illegal hunting enforcement efforts worked to support the operation on their days off so that normal
patrol staffing would not be negatively impacted. Staff recommends that a similar operation be considered for the next
hunting season with additional prevention and education efforts prior to the start of the season in partnership with the
14 known hunting clubs in Albemarle County.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact for this information item. The PD requested $12,000 to fund enhanced illegal hunting and
trespassing enforcement efforts for the 2013/2014 hunting season as part of the FY 2014 budget process. That
request is included in the approved FY 2014 budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
No action is necessary at this time. The Board has already indicated its continued support of enhanced illegal hunting
and trespassing enforcement efforts for the 2013/2014 hunting season.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Southern Albemarle Illegal Hunting Presentation
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Southern Albemarle
ILLEGAL HUNTING COMPLAINTS
Southern Albemarle
Illegal Hunting
October 1, 2012 received a complaint from Thomas
Sullivan regarding illegal hound hunting in the area of
Jefferson Mill Rd. and Blenheim Rd. over the weekend of
September 29-30.
October 8, 2012 received another complaint from John
Wilkerson regarding illegal hound hunting in the area of
Blenheim Rd. over the weekend of September 29-30.
October 8, 2012 Game Warden, Paul Inge, received a
complaint through their Crimeline regarding a large white
hemi pick-up dropping hounds along the roadway of
Blenheim Rd. to run deer.
Noted Problems
On the weekend of September 29-30, 2012 members of
the Woodridge Hunting Club sponsored a “Fox Chase” hunt
in the Woodridge area of Albemarle County.
According to the complaints, dogs were dropped along the
roadways of Blenheim Rd. and Jefferson Mill Rd.
Men in vehicles surrounded a 25 mile area of Woodridge in
an effort to monitor this “Fox Chase”.
Trespassing, shooting from the roadway, hounds running
through neighborhoods and other game law violations were
noted by the victims.
Mailbox vandalisms and deer carcasses being dumped in
driveways are also noted if anyone reports to Law
Enforcement.
Noted Problems
October 27, 2012 Officer Darrell Mikesh and GW Paul Inge
were patrolling southern Albemarle County when they
found illegal deer at a residence located at 4780 Blenheim
Ridge Rd. Three deer carcasses were located, two had been
shot on Sunday. Stuart McDaniel was charged with hunting
w/o a license and hunting on Sunday.
November 6, 2012 officers responded to 800 Millwood Lane
for a report of illegal deer hunting. Officers found five-six
deer carcasses dumped in the creek at the bridge.
Concerned Landowner
Blenheim Road
I wanted to add our voices to those who are taking a firm stand against
the Woodridge "Sportsmen's" Club and the practice of hound hunting for
deer in Albemarle. For years now, my neighbors and I have had to
endure countless property rights violations and have been witness to
blatant disregard for game laws. Even now, some of us worry about
criminal retribution for speaking out against this group of bullies. (I don't
expect my mailbox to make it through this deer season and for deer
carcasses to be left in the driveway).
Last weekend's 25 square mile "field trial" was a direct shot across the
bow of private property owners and law enforcement. It was meant to
send a message that they intend to hunt wherever, whatever and
whenever they want to with impunity.
•
Last 90 days of activity
Friday/Saturday most active between 1700-2100 hrs.
78 calls for service
Calls for Service
Millwood Lane Bridge
Actions Taken
Working with BOS which has allocated $12,000 for
overtime for officers to work game enforcement
assignments.
District Supervisor, Corporal Gary Pistulka, assigned as
project manager/Operations Plan development.
Officers providing extra patrols while working patrol shifts.
Working with impacted land owners to address growing
problem.
Officers working with local Game Wardens to identify
possible suspects/impacted areas for enforcement.
District Officer, Darrell Mikesh, assigned as department
“Point of Contact” for land owners/other agencies.
Roll Call trainings by GW Paul Inge.
Interdiction operations-November 24th/December 8th, 2012
daylight hours.
Actions Taken (Operational)
Operational Order created based on
◦Citizen Complaints
◦Crime Trends
◦Departmental Needs
Actions Taken (Operational)
Morning patrols for Illegal hunting
◦Joint Patrols with Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries.
◦Assignments from 0600 until 1200
◦Plain clothes and unmarked vehicles
◦Targeting
Illegal Hunting
trespassing,
weapons violations
Actions Taken (Operational)
Evening Patrol Hunting Operation
◦Joint Patrol assignments (2 Officers)
◦1900 until 2300 Hours
May be varied up to an hour to work with the
officer’s schedule
◦Officers will be in uniform for this assignment.
◦Areas selected based on
Complaints
Calls for service
Statistical data
◦Secondary to the Joint Patrols
Financing
Hunting Operation Hours used
12000.00 = 314.71 Man Hours Available
◦240 scheduled operational hours
◦Officer hours used 210.5
◦G&IF Hours 129 (not compensated by
Albemarle County)
Actions Taken (Operational)
Statistical Data
Hunting Involved Cases (ACPD)
2012-08703 Blenheim Ridge Rd.
Illegal Hunting
2012-08804 Blenheim Ridge Rd.
Animal Running at Large
2012-09316 Eyeland Drive
Larceny
Narcotic Violation
Cruelty to Animals
2012-09296 Campbell Rd.
Illegal Dumping
Statistical Data
Continued
2012-09296 Campbell Rd.
Illegal Dumping
2012-08897 Millwood Ln.
Illegal Dumping
2012-09561
Shots Fired, Spotlighting
201209976 Gordonsville Road
Hit & Run, Drug Violation
2012-10585 Arrowhead Valley Rd.
Illegal Dumping
Actions Taken (Operational)
Actions Taken (Operational)
Statistical Data, Charges
Hunting without License: 4 Pending: 1
Hunting with Firearm while Intoxicated: 2
Exceed Bag Limit: 2
Trespass: 13 Pending: 1
Transport Loaded Firearm on Highway: 2
Miscellaneous Hunting or Animal Violations: 8
Kill Deer Illegally: 2
Fail to Validate Tag/Check Deer: 2
Unauthorized Feeding of Deer: 1
Driving Under the Influence: 1
Possession of Firearm by Convicted Felon: 3
Drug Violation:2 Pending: 1
Larceny: 2
Traffic: 5 Pending: 3
Hunting Operation Overall Statistics
2012
Total Hunting Licenses issued in Albemarle
County: 167,340
Contacts: 673
Charges: 49 Pending: 6
Operational Events: 24
Man Hours: 210.5 ACPD 129 G&IF
Estimated Man Hour Cost: $8,026.37
After Action
Enforcement should start four weeks prior
to Hunting Season
Surveillance in areas with yearly dumping
◦Surveillance cameras on Millwood, Campbell,
and Stony Point Pass
Night OPS during bow season (joint
w/G&IF)
Better training for Officers prior to
Hunting Season
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: Trevor Henry, Director
County of Albemarle
Office of Facilities Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
FROM: Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner, Planning Division
DATE: April 25, 2013
RE: CCP201300001 County Use of 705 Rio Road West (tax parcel 06100-00-00-120K0)
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 23, 2013, by a vote of 7:0, found the
location, character and extent of the proposed uses of 705 Rio Road West are in substantial accord with
the County’s adopted Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified as the favorable factors of the staff
report. The Planning Commission further requested that final site design comply with the Comprehensive
Plan’s Neighborhood Model principles and the Community Facilities Plan to the greatest extent possible.
Favorable factors are outlined below:
1. The site is centrally-located in a designated Development Area and has access to necessary public
infrastructure including a good transportation network and public utilities.
2. A public library on this site will provide for an institutional use that will complement and support the
Urban Mixed Use center and areas around it.
3. The existing building can be renovated to meet the general community facility standards and more
specific library facility needs and standards as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The renovation of the building and site will not impact streams, floodplain, WPO or steep slope.
Office of Facilities Development (OFD)
Capital Projects Status Report
1st Quarter CY 2013
May 1, 2013
OFD is pleased to present the first quarter Capital Projects Status Report for calendar
year 2013. The report provides summary level information on all projects managed by
OFD, both Capital Projects and Capital Maintenance Projects. As you will recall, the
first of this type report was presented to you in February and covered CY 2012 fourth
quarter. The Board confirmed the format and contents of th e report provided the level
of detailed expected.
The OFD team has been busily supporting a myriad of County projects this spring; the
following provides a few highlights on notable projects. The Ivy Fire station is on
schedule to start limited ambulance operations in May with full station operations in
July. The Crozet Library is on track for a July substantial completion date with JMRL
staff planning to occupy in August. The Seminole Trail Fire station bid dates have slid a
month due to making several adjustments on the site plan in order to obtain approval
through the review process. The Belvedere Residential "Block" roads, drainage, water,
sanitary sewer project from Free State Road bridge to the Village Green has been bid
and finally the Firearms Training Center/Range site selection process is ongoing.
The following sections provide a summary on all projects and more detailed information
of select Capital Projects. During the meeting on the 1st, Trevor Henry will provide a
summary level review of projects and he along with the individual PM’s will be available
for any detailed questions.
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013
Page 1 of 9
CAPITAL PROJECTS
In Construction Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Crozet Library Construction of a 23,000
square foot, LEED certified
library building, which will
include space for
complementary uses such as
public meeting rooms and
community space.
Construction underway;
approximately 65%
complete as of March
2013.
Ongoing coordination on
furniture, fixtures and
books purchase (funded
by Friends of the
Library).
$8,867,491 Substantial completion
July 2013
Occupancy August
2013
Crozet Streetscape Phase II Relocation of overhead
electric and utility lines from
Crozet Avenue, new
stormwater drainage system,
first block of Main Street
(Library Avenue), and
pedestrian, vehicular, and
streetscape enhancements
along Crozet Avenue from
The Square to Tabor Street.
Dominion Virginia Power
(DVP) utility relocation
underway; Comcast
coordinating with DVP
for sharing areas of
open trench installation;
CenturyLink awarded
their relocation work
independent of DVP and
is expected to be
complete within 2
months once work is
started.
Coordinating electrical
service connections to
DVP’s relocated lines.
Final streetscape design
plans and project
manual submitted to
VDOT for review and
approval.
2 dedications being
finalized for recordation;
1 deed for plat
correction being signed
by owner.
$4,457,898 Utility relocation
complete – 2nd
Quarter 2013
Streetscape –
Bid/award 2nd /3rd
Quarter 2013, ~10-14
months construction
Library Ave accepted
in State system
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013
Page 2 of 9
Ivy Fire Station A 24/7 fire & rescue facility of
roughly 5,800 square feet,
within an existing warehouse
(owned by the University of
Virginia), consisting of 3
apparatus bays (2 engines, 1
ambulance) and support
facilities for a crew of 6.
Construction underway;
approximately 70%
complete as of March
2013.
Finalizing details for
emergency signal control,
IT systems, and
furniture/fixture
procurements.
$2,221,029 Substantial completion
May 2013
On-Line July 2013
COB McIntire Brick Re-Pointing Three (3) projects involved in
scope: 1) Brick Re-pointing;
2) Masonry Repairs; and 3)
Front Stairs Waterproofing.
Brick Re-pointing:
Substantial completion
achieved February 2013.
Masonry Repairs:
Complete Sept. 2012.
Front Stairs
Waterproofing: Notice of
Award issued 3/29/13.
$948,460 Brick Re-pointing:
Final Completion
March 2013
Masonry Repairs:
Final Completion
September 2012
Front Stairs
Waterproofing: NTP
April 2013, substantial
completion ~30 days
In Bid/Award Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Murray High School
Renovations
Renovations of selected
existing classrooms to enable
"Enterprise" program
students to move from
learning cottages to
classrooms. Includes
moving existing ARC
operation to former learning
cottages and upgrade to
science classroom. Very
challenging schedule with
significant amount of
logistical coordination.
Two bid packages being
advertised: 1)
Demolition/Asbestos
Abatement; 2)
Renovations.
Bid openings scheduled:
4/19/13 (Demo/Abate);
5/1/13 (Renovation).
$699,830 Demolition/
Abatement NTP
5/3/13; completion
6/28/13
Renovation NTP
6/6/13; substantial
completion 8/9/13
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013
Page 3 of 9
In Design/Planning Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Crozet North Sidewalk Replacing or constructing
approximately 1100 feet of
sidewalk and drainage
improvements along the west
side of Crozet Avenue from
Saint George Avenue to
Crozet Elementary School
Construction partially funded
with FY13 Revenue Sharing
(RS) Funds. A Safe Routes to
School (SRTS) Grant provides
improved pedestrian crossing
at the school and extends
sidewalk to Ballard Drive.
St. George Ave to School
Sidewalk:
o A/E contract for final
design and right-of-
way acquisition
services pending
VDOT splitting the RS
project award into 2
UPC project numbers.
o VDOT determined our
“on-call” civil
engineering services
procurement process
met VDOT
requirements.
o Evaluating VDOT
process requirements
regarding use of RS
funds to determine
impacts to project
schedule and budget.
SRTS Sidewalk:
o Final plans and
project manual
submitted to VDOT
for approval and
authorization to bid.
o Right of Way
Certification
submitted to VDOT.
o Planning bid opening
end of May.
$852,408
(Crozet North
$662,408;
SRTS
$190,000)
St. George Ave to School
– appropriate RS funds;
Bid/award 3rd/4th
Quarter 2013, ~4
months construction
SRTS – Bid/award 2nd
Quarter 2013, ~4
months construction
South Pantops Drive/State
Farm Boulevard Sidewalk
Improvements
Construction of 3500 feet of
curb, gutter and sidewalk
which will serve several
residential, business, and
A/E contract for right-of-
way acquisition and
construction phase
services pending VDOT
$900,264 Appropriate RS funds
Bid/award 3rd /4th
Quarter 2013, ~6
months construction
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013
Page 4 of 9
commercial establishments.
Construction partially funded
with FY13 Revenue Sharing
(RS) Funds.
splitting the RS project
award into 2 UPC project
numbers.
VDOT determined our
“on-call” civil engineering
services procurement
process met VDOT
requirements.
Evaluating VDOT process
requirements regarding
use of RS funds to
determine impacts to
project schedule and
budget.
Fontaine Avenue Sidewalk Construction of a short
sidewalk (~160') from the
Research Park to the City line.
This project closes gaps
between sidewalks which may
create safety issues if left
uncorrected.
Anticipate starting design
2nd Quarter 2013.
$102,189 Bid 3rd Quarter 2013,
~1 month construction
Hollymead-Powell Creek Drive
Sidewalk
Completion of the sidewalk
connection from Hollymead to
Sutherland Schools. The
required right-of-way has
been donated.
Anticipate starting design
2nd Quarter 2013.
$209,164 Bid 3rd Quarter 2013,
~1 month construction
Police Firing Range Project has been re-scoped to
an indoor range. Executive
Committee has been
analyzing/reviewing Multiple
sites prioritizing those sites
under control of County or
Joint partners.
Continue site design
analysis.
Form committee to
support site
determination.
$1,614,208 Site recommendation to
BOS in July/Aug
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013
Page 5 of 9
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire
Department (STVFD)
Addition/Renovation
Addition (10,500 sq. ft.) to
STVFD and full renovation of
the existing facilities (~7,500
sq. ft.). Includes 2-bay
addition, expansion of living
Quarters and full renovation
of existing facility to bring it
to code and improve the
facilities to properly support
the highest call volume
station in the County.
Bid documents to be
finalized week of
4/22/13.
Received asbestos report
from consultant – non-
friable asbestos found at
floor tiles so must add
abatement to scope.
Community Development
site plan issues have
been addressed. Revised
site plan submitted on
4/22/13. Resolution of
some site issues require
waiver requests (i.e.
critical slope and buffer
zone) that will be
included on 5/1/13
Consent Agenda.
Anticipate issuing notice
to proceed by 2nd quarter
2013 and substantial
completion by 2nd quarter
2014.
$3,836,670 Bid/Award 2nd Quarter
2013, ~12 months
construction
Church Road Basin Stormwater
Management Facility Retrofit
Maintenance/enhancements
to existing regional
stormwater management
facility including survey,
design, and construction.
Project will help the County
meet required pollutant
reductions mandated for the
Chesapeake Bay watershed.
A/E contract approved
March 2013.
Planned Tasks:
o Survey site.
o Complete Design
Charrette.
o Submit USACE
permit application/
obtain approval.
o Complete
construction
documents.
$449,739 Obtain U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE)
Permit (wetlands and
stream)
Bid/Award 1st Quarter
2014, ~8 months
construction
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013
Page 6 of 9
Belvedere Phase I Complete the Belvedere
Boulevard and Residential
"Block" roads, drainage,
water, sanitary sewer and
related construction according
to the approved development
plans. Phase 1 of the work is
Belvedere Boulevard from Rio
Road to Free State Road (RR
bridge); Phase 2 is the
remaining Belvedere
Boulevard (Free State Rd. to
the Village Green) and the
residential "Blocks" (3, 4A,
5A, 6B & 9A). Funds for this
project are from the
developer’s performance
bonds.
Phase 1 Work:
VDOT determined that
existing base asphalt is
of an inferior quality and
removal of all base
asphalt will be required
Bond proceeds not
sufficient to cover work;
project on hold.
Continuing to work with
VDOT to find other
solutions.
Phase 2 Work:
Advertise 4/15/13; bid
opening 5/15/13.
$3,675,790 Phase 1 Work – Resolve
funding issues
Phase 2 Work –
Bid/award 2nd Quarter
2013, ~7 months
construction
Lewis & Clark Exploratory
Center
Construction of an
educational building
(including transportation
exhibits and river history), an
access road and parking area,
and a connecting trail
network, all located at Darden
Towe Park. Funded by a
grant through the VDOT
Transportation Enhancement
Fund Program ($800,000)
combined with other funds
raised by the Lewis & Clark
Exploratory Center.
Final LCEC
reimbursement request
being prepared for
submittal to VDOT.
Completed County &
City granting of a
Dominion Power
easement across the
Park property.
Coordinating County &
City dedication of an
ACSA waterline
easement across the
Park property.
Board approved
$130,000 appropriation
to the Economic
Development Authority
for funding a loan to the
$800,000
(Grant only)
Planned Completion May
2013
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013
Page 7 of 9
LCEC for completion of
the project; and
authorized County
Executive to sign an
agreement subject to
certain payment/
repayment terms and
the City contributing the
other $130,000 required
to make up the
$260,000 shortfall.
MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
Substantially Complete Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
County Courthouse ADA
Accessible Ramp
Installation of a new ADA
accessible ramp and entry
door. Work will involve
demolition of an existing
window and portion of
masonry wall; a new door will
be installed in the opening.
The new ramp will be
installed as a continuation of
the existing ramp.
Project substantially
complete February 2013.
Verifying completion of
punch list items.
$37,785 Close out project 2nd
Quarter 2013
Greenwood Community Center
Foundation Drainage Repairs
Building was constructed in
1950 and there are no
foundation drains. Needs
foundation drains and
waterproofing to eliminate
water seeping into building
along foundation and through
foundation wall. Downspouts
will also be collected in a pipe
and routed away from the
building. Project will reduce
mold, improve air quality and
allow the space to be utilized.
Project substantially
complete April 2013.
$61,421 Close out project 2nd
Quarter 2013.
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013
Page 8 of 9
In Bid/Award Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
VMF Lift Replacements Phase
II
Replace 1 bus lift. Notice of Award issued
3/28/13.
Anticipate issuing Notice
to Proceed 6/6/13.
$162,524 Secure lift June 2013
Substantial Completion
July 2013
Albemarle High School New
Gym & Gym Addition
Re-Roofing
Tear- off and re-roofing of
new gymnasium and
gymnasium addition roofs.
Gymnasium is 21,800 square
feet and gymnasium addition
is 10,000 square feet.
Pre-bid meeting
3/27/13.
Bid opening 4/18/13.
$391,560 Award 2nd Quarter 2013
Substantial Completion
August 2013
Building Services Main Building
Re-Roofing
Tear-off and re-roofing of
Building Services' main
building. Main roof is 9,440
square feet.
Pre-bid meeting
3/27/13.
Bid opening 4/18/13.
$136,710 Award 2nd Quarter 2013
Substantial Completion
August 2013
Cale Elementary School Main
Building and ’97 Addition Re-
Roofing
Tear-off and re-roofing of
main building and 1997
addition roofs. Main building
is 52,851 square feet and
new addition is 7,100 square
feet.
Pre-bid meeting 4/8/13.
Bid opening 4/25/13.
Project to be phased;
too much work to
perform in 10 weeks
without driving costs up
significantly. Estimate
entire project is 90 days
duration and 66 days
available.
$726,820 Award 2nd Quarter 2013
Substantial Completion
August 2013
Jouett Middle School Brick Re-
Pointing
Re-point deteriorated sections
of brick veneer and repair
(overhead) cracked brick at
recessed opening.
Pre-bid meeting
3/29/13.
Bid opening 4/16/13.
$58,940 Award 2nd Quarter 2013
Substantial Completion
August 2013
Jouett Middle School Tennis
Court Improvements
Renovation of: a) 2 existing
regulation tennis courts into
10 U-8 teaching courts; and
b) existing asphalt-paved
area into 1 combination
regulation / U-10 teaching
tennis courts and an area for
3 basketball hoops.
Bid Documents to be
issued on 4/19/13.
Pre-Bid Meeting
scheduled for 04/29/13.
Bid Opening scheduled
for 5/14/13.
$142,100 Bid Award 2nd Quarter
2013
Substantial Completion
August 2013
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 1st Quarter, CY 2013
Page 9 of 9
Scottsville Elementary School
Cafeteria & Gym
Structural Repairs
Perform structural repairs to
CMU walls that appear to
have been damaged during
earthquake. Work will
include structural
reinforcement and
architectural work to improve
the aesthetic value of the
structural work.
Pre-bid meeting 4/1/13.
Bid opening 4/10/13.
$107,100 Award 2nd Quarter 2013
Substantial Completion
August 2013
Parks Road Resurfacing 2013 Resurface portions of parking
lots at 6 county parks: Mint
Springs; Preddy Creek Trails
Park; Charlotte Y. Humphris
Park; Cladius Crozet Park;
Beaver Creek Park; and Totier
Creek Park.
Pre-bid meeting
4/10/13.
Bid opening 4/18/13.
$140,000 Award April 2013
Substantial Completion
May 2013
In Design/Planning Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Stormwater Multi-Facility
Maintenance Projects
Includes maintenance
(sediment removal/dredging)
and possible upgrades to
several existing regional
stormwater management
facilities (Four Seasons Upper
and Lower basins, the
Greenbrier Road forebay
(Hillsdale Ave), and the Mill
Creek basin.
- Phase 1 scope: surveying
and analysis of existing
facilities to determine
required improvements and
possible enhancements.
- Phase 2 scope: complete
design documents and
construction of recommended
improvements/enhancements.
A/E contract approved
for Phase 1 scope.
$373,404 Complete survey &
facilities analysis 2nd
Quarter 2013.
Complete design
documents for
improvements/
enhancements 3rd
Quarter 2013.
Bid/Award 4th Quarter
2013
Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2013
Project: Crozet Library Building
Description:
Design and construction of a 23,000 square foot, LEED certified library building, which will include
space for complementary uses such as public meeting rooms and community space. The primary
mission of the new facility is to serve the library needs of the defined Western Albemarle service area
with a concerted focus on both existing and emerging technologies and solutions that will support the
library’s programming and best serve its patrons.
Status:
Construction underway, anticipate substantial completion July 2013. Construction contract approximately
65% complete as of March 2013. Work planned for April/May 2013 includes: complete Dominion
Virginia Power connection; start-up HVAC units; complete brick; parking lot grading; sidewalk ramp
(switchback); windows in place and authorize CenturyLink to move fiber optic cable line to resolve
conflict with storm sewer (received VDOT acceptance of responsibility for fiber conflict with storm sewer
and will reimburse the County for the cost). Project remains on schedule for occupancy by the Library in
August 2013. Meetings are ongoing with Library representatives and Friends of the Library (FOL)
coordinating the furniture, fixtures and books purchase (funded by FOL).
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Bid Opening Date 03/28/12 03/28/12 0
Notice to Proceed 07/01/12 07/01/12 0
Excavation Complete 11/09/12 11/12/12 3
Structural Elements Complete 01/24/13 01/24/13 0
Building Dried-In 04/23/13 04/30/13 7
Finishes Complete 05/14/13 05/25/13 11
Site Work Complete 06/13/13 06/25/13 12
Substantial Completion 06/30/13 07/15/13 15
Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[June 2012]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 8,867,491 $ 8,867,491 $ -
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 8,867,491 $ 8,867,491 $ -
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 1,703,199 $ 1,767,330 $ (64,131)
Hard Costs $ 6,596,550 $ 6,911,974 $ (315,424)
Contingency $ 567,742 $ 188,188 $ 379,554
Total $ 8,867,491 $ 8,867,491 $ -
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 2,465,660
Paid to Date: $ 5,527,735
A/E Contract (Grimm+Parker Architects) Construction Contract (MB Contractors)
Original Agreement $585,000 Bid Award $5,810,000
Approved Changes $409,369 Approved Changes $ 82,749
Pending Changes $0 Pending Changes $ 63,000
TOTAL $994,369 TOTAL $5,955,749
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Increase size; change schedule
(FY09)
$226,755
2 – Add geotechnical investigation
(FY09)
$8,945
3 – Add LEED service (FY10) $120,450
4 – Change to phased plan, delete
FFE design & reduce CA (FY10)
($161,295)
5 – Parking lot SWM & ARB
review (FY12)
$7,590
6 – Restore CA & FFE design;
adjust for scope & schedule
(FY13)
$206,915
Construction Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Slope drain & waterline
revisions
$5,323
2 – Waterline changes in Crozet
Ave; credit for 2500lb elevator vs
3000lb
$54,374
3 – Locate fiber optic line Crozet
Ave; additional waterproofing at
basement
$2,865
4 – Increase column size; floor box
revisions (electrical)
5 – Mechanical breaker change and
sprinkler relocation
6 – Tube steel at clerestory and re-
routing roof drains
$14,362
$2,855
$2,970
Pending: Revise conduits through
parking lot; ditch improvements at
Crozet Ave; revise sidewalk to be
ADA compliant; casework changes
$63,000
Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2013
Project: Crozet Streetscape Enhancements Phase II
Phase 2 (Crozet Avenue) and 2A (Main Street and Alleys)
Description:
Phase 2 and 2A of the Crozet Streetscape Enhancements includes relocation of overhead electric and
utility lines from Crozet Avenue, new stormwater drainage system, first block of Main Street (Library
Avenue), and pedestrian, vehicular, and streetscape enhancements along Crozet Avenue from The
Square to Tabor Street.
Status:
Phase 2 – Crozet Avenue:
• Dominion Virginia Power (DVP) relocation/undergrounding has commenced; Comcast has
coordinated with DVP for sharing areas of open trench installation; CenturyLink has awarded their
relocation work independent of DVP and is expected to be complete within 2 months once work is
started. Coordinating electrical service connections to DVP’s relocated lines.
• Finalizing two deeds and plats for recordation; one plat correction is being signed by owner.
• Final design plans and project manual submitted to VDOT for review and approval.
Phase 2A – Main Street and Alleys:
Library Avenue construction completed and street opened to public in late June 2011. VDOT has
accepted the street into State secondary system.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Design Complete 08/30/12 02/28/13 182
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 08/30/12 05/01/13 244
VDOT Approval to Advertise 09/30/12 06/01/13 244
Utility Relocation Complete 10/30/12 06/01/13 214
Advertise 09/30/12 06/15/13 258
Bid Opening Date 10/30/12 07/15/13 258
Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of
Contract 11/30/12 08/15/13 258
Ph-A Curb, Drainage & Sidewalk
Complete
06/01/13 12/15/13 197
Ph-B Curb, Drainage & Sidewalk
Complete
11/01/13 07/01/14 242
Paving Complete 12/01/13 08/01/14 243
Substantial Completion 01/30/14 08/15/14 197
Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[March 2007]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 3,380,213 $ 3,380,213 $ -
Future Appropriations $ 319,787 $ 1,077,685 $ (757,898)
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 3,700,000 $ 4,457,898 $ (757,898)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 590,000 $ 804,401 $ (214,401)
Hard Costs $ 2,770,000 $ 3,415,274 $ (645,274)
Contingency $ 340,000 $ 238,222 $ 101,778
Total $ 3,700,000 $ 4,457,898 $ (757,897)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 905,328
Paid to Date: $ 1,547,880
* Future Appropriation includes a transfer of $583,433 from SWM fund and $181,900 from the Crozet Library
project; and $230,452 in Revenue Sharing and $81,900 PM fee still to be appropriated
A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract (Ph 2A – Library Ave)
Original Agreement $379,000 Bid Award $641,695
Approved Changes $163,761 Approved Changes $138,473
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ 0
TOTAL $542,761 TOTAL $780,168
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Jarmans Gap Road interim storm
system & historic resources (FY09)
$41,500
2 – Additional plats & transportation
planning services (FY09)
$12,625
3 – Main Street extension to proposed
Library entrance (FY09)
$24,000
4 – Conceptual Downtown Plaza
improvements (FY09)
$9,750
5 – Additional plats (FY10) $2,750
6 – Temporary tie-in of new Main
Street (FY10)
$21,000
7 – Water & sewer relocation design
(FY10)
$7,300
8 – Library storm sewer advance
work (FY12)
$5,961
9 – Finalize const. documents (FY13) $38,875
Construction Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Sidewalk revisions, additional
asphalt, power conduit/pull boxes in
alleys
$73,625
2 – Add parking spaces, revise
storm sewer outfall, temporary
electric service for lighting
$43,455
3 – Raise ACSA meter, extend
project schedule
$21,393
Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2013
Project: Crozet North Sidewalk
Description:
Provide for pedestrian safety by replacing or constructing approximately 1100 feet of sidewalk and drainage
improvements along the west side of Crozet Avenue from Saint George Avenue to Crozet Elementary
School. County and Revenue Sharing funds are being used to provide the sidewalk from St. George Avenue
to Crozet Elementary School. A Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Grant provides improved pedestrian crossing
at the school and extends sidewalk to Ballard Drive.
Status:
Crozet Avenue North Sidewalk: A/E contract for final design, right-of-way acquisition and construction phase
services pending VDOT splitting the Revenue Sharing (RS) project award into two UPC project numbers.
VDOT determined our “on-call” civil engineering services procurement process met VDOT requirements.
Process requirements regarding use of RS funds being evaluated to determine impacts to project schedule and
budget. Various requirements related to use of RS funds were not realized until a kick-off meeting (i.e.
construction inspector presence; VDOT UPC number impact on project advertisement). Currently anticipate
having necessary VDOT approvals to advertise for bid by 3rd quarter and award in 4th quarter 2013;
approximately 4 months construction.
Safe Routes to School Sidewalk: Final plans and project manual submitted to VDOT for review and approval –
request authorization to advertise once approved. Right of Way Certification has been submitted to VDOT.
Currently planning bid opening end of May.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Revenue Sharing Project
(St. George to Crozet ES)
Design Complete 02/14/13 7/15/2013 151
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 03/15/13 9/1/2013 170
VDOT Approval to Advertise 04/15/13 9/1/2013 139
Bid Opening Date 05/31/13 9/30/2013 122
Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of Contract 06/30/13 10/15/2013 107
Curb & Drainage Complete 08/31/13 12/15/2013 106
Sidewalks Complete 09/30/13 12/15/2013 76
Paving Complete 10/15/13 1/10/2014 87
Substantial Completion 10/15/13 2/15/2014 123
SRTS Grant Project
(Crozet ES to Ballard Dr.)
Design Complete 04/30/12 02/20/13 296
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 05/31/12 12/30/12 213
VDOT Approval to Advertise 06/30/12 04/30/13 304
Bid Opening Date 08/15/12 05/30/13 288
Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of Contract 09/15/12 06/30/13 288
Curb & Drainage Complete 11/15/12 08/30/13 288
Sidewalks Complete 11/30/12 09/15/13 289
Paving Complete 12/15/12 09/30/13 289
Substantial Completion 12/15/12 09/30/13 289
Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 564,808 $ 564,808 $ -
Future Appropriations $ 96,592 $ 287,600 $ (191,008)
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 661,400 $ 852,408 $ (191,008)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 104,200 $ 224,833 $ (120,633)
Hard Costs $ 497,200 $ 619,400 $ (122,200)
Contingency $ 60,000 $ 8,175 $ 51,825
Total $ 661,400 $ 852,408 $ (191,008)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 9,866
Paid to Date: $ 109,367
A/E Contract – RS Sidewalk (Kimley-Horn & Assoc.) Construction Contract
Original Agreement $40,000 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $ 1,600 Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $41,000 Pending Changes $
TOTAL $82,600 TOTAL $
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 - Eliminate bid/construction
observation; add plats & final
engineering services.
Pending: Waterline relocation
design and wetland delineation,
environmental permitting, right-of-
way acquisition and construction
phase services
$1,600
$41,000
A/E Contract – SRTS (Anhold Associates)
Original Agreement $20,697
Approved Changes $2,524
Pending Changes $ 0
TOTAL $23,221
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Prepare documents to relocate
existing waterline conflicting with
proposed stormwater utilities
$2,524
Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2013
Project: South Pantops Drive/State Farm Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements
Description:
Provide for pedestrian safety along the north side of South Pantops Drive and west side of State Farm
Boulevard by constructing 3500 feet of curb, gutter and sidewalk which will serve several residential,
business, and commercial establishments. Construction will be partially funded with FY13 Revenue
Sharing Funds.
Status:
A/E contract for right-of-way acquisition and construction phase services pending VDOT splitting the
Revenue Sharing (RS) project award into two UPC project numbers. VDOT determined our “on-call” civil
engineering services procurement process met VDOT requirements. Process requirements regarding use of
RS funds being evaluated to determine impacts to project schedule and budget. Various requirements
related to use of RS funds were not realized until a kick-off meeting (i.e. construction inspector presence;
VDOT UPC number impact on project advertisement). Currently anticipate having necessary VDOT
approvals to advertise for bid by 3rd quarter and award in 4th quarter 2013; approximately 6 months
construction.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Design Complete 12/31/12 07/15/13 196
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 03/15/13 09/01/13 170
VDOT Approval to Advertise 04/15/13 09/01/13 139
Bid Opening Date 06/01/13 09/30/13 121
Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of
Contract 07/01/13 10/15/13 106
Curb & Drainage Complete 09/01/13 01/10/14 131
Sidewalks Complete 10/01/13 02/01/14 123
Paving Complete 10/15/13 03/15/14 151
Substantial Completion 10/31/13 04/01/14 152
Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[July 2008]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 512,000 $ 526,664 $ (14,664)
Future Appropriations $ - $ 373,600 $ (373,600)
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 512,000 $ 900,264 $ (388,264)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 60,000 $ 128,069 $ (68,069)
Hard Costs $ 410,000 $ 717,150 $ (307,150)
Contingency $ 42,000 $ 55,045 $ (13,045)
Total $ 512,000 $ 900,264 $ (388,264)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ -
Paid to Date: $ 70,170
A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract
Original Agreement $39,116 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $ 9,369 Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $42,100 Pending Changes $
TOTAL $90,585 TOTAL $
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Update survey (FY09) $600
2 – Additional survey (FY09) $6,950
3 – Add topo survey, plats & final
engineering; eliminate bidding/
construction observation (FY12)
$1,819
Pending: Bidding/construction
phase; easement acquisition
services
$42,100
Page 1 of 2 May1, 2013
Project: Ivy Fire Station
Description:
A 24/7 fire & rescue facility of roughly 5,800 square feet, within an existing warehouse (owned by the
University of Virginia), consisting of 3 apparatus bays (2 engines, 1 ambulance) and support facilities
for a crew of 6. A fire/rescue station is needed to meet the response time goals in this portion of the
County’s development area and to provide services to this densely populated rural area of the County.
Status:
Construction underway, anticipate substantial completion May 2013, with station on-line July 2013.
Construction contract approximately 70% complete as of March 2013. Original goal of April early
occupancy was delayed due to need to address unforeseen concrete floor and column footing deficiencies.
Work planned for April 2013 includes: complete siding; install mechanical/air handlers; emergency signal
control engineered plan to VDOT. Easement deficiency issue resolved with Community Development and
adjacent property owners. Procurements complete for altering system, generator, badge card readers and
phones. Finalizing details for emergency signal control, IT systems, and furniture/fixture procurements.
Overhead doors will be completed in May, but Temporary Occupancy Permit expected May 1 for
ambulance operations.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Bid Opening Date 09/27/12 09/27/12 0
Notice to Proceed 10/19/12 10/22/12 3
Demolition Complete 11/12/12 11/15/12 3
Building Infrastructure Complete 03/01/13 03/22/13 21
Finishes Complete 04/01/13 04/22/13 21
Site Work Complete 04/01/13 05/01/13 30
Substantial Completion 04/01/13 05/01/13 30
Page 2 of 2 May1, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[July 2011]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 2,173,793 $ 2,221,029 $ (47,236)
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 2,173,793 $ 2,221,029 $ (47,236)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 332,139 $ 424,110 $ (91,971)
Hard Costs $ 1,650,000 $ 1,502,901 $ 147,099
Contingency $ 191,654 $ 191,654 $ -
Total $ 2,173,793 $ 2,118,665 $ 55,128
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ 102,364
Encumbered: $ 358,385
Paid to Date: $ 910,083
A/E Contract (LeMay Erickson Willcox Architects) Construction Contract (Coleman-Adams Const.)
Original Agreement $165,730 Bid Award $724,000
Approved Changes $ 20,635 Approved Changes $ 40,424
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ 47,062
TOTAL $186,365 TOTAL $811,486
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Structural evaluation &
reinforcement design
$6,600
2 – Site plan coordination w/
adjacent property
$2,720
3 – Sprinkler redesign, generator,
additional structural evaluations
$11,315
Construction Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Replace concrete floor slab in
apparatus bay area
2 – Miscellaneous items (12),
electrical, grease trap, etc.
Pending: column piers corrections;
front footer revisions; mezzanine
storage area; countertops, CMU
$28,059
$12,365
$47,062
Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2013
Project: Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Addition/Renovation
Description:
Addition (10,500 sq. ft.) to Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department (STVFD) and full renovation of
the existing facilities (~7,500 sq. ft.). Total scope includes a 2-bay addition, an expansion of living
quarters and full renovation of the existing facility to bring it to code and improve the facilities to
properly support the highest call volume station in the County.
Status:
Bid documents to be finalized week of 4/22/13. Received asbestos report from consultant – non-friable
asbestos found at floor tiles so must add abatement to scope. Community Development site plan issues
have been addressed. Revised site plan was submitted on 4/22/13. Resolution of some site issues require
waiver requests (i.e. critical slope and buffer zone) that will be included on 5/1/13 Consent Agenda. Site
Plan approval is critical path on the project. Anticipate issuing notice to proceed by 2nd quarter 2013 and
substantial completion by 2nd quarter 2014.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Pre-design Complete 01/11/13 01/18/13 7
Design Complete 03/22/13 04/26/13 35
Bid Opening Date 04/11/13 05/22/13 41
Notice to Proceed 04/29/13 05/31/13 32
Renovation Demo Complete 06/14/13 07/19/13 35
Excavation Complete 07/05/13 07/26/13 21
Structural Elements Complete 09/06/13 09/27/13 21
Building Dried-In 11/29/13 12/20/13 21
Finishes Complete 02/28/14 03/21/14 21
Site Work Complete 03/21/14 04/11/14 21
Substantial Completion 04/04/14 04/25/14 21
Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[May 2012]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 3,824,947 $ 3,824,947 $ -
Future Appropriations $ 11,723 $ 11,723 $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 3,836,670 $ 3,836,670 $ -
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 426,320 $ 488,596 $ (62,276)
Hard Costs $ 3,126,500 $ 2,961,685 $ 164,815
Contingency $ 283,850 $ 283,850 $ -
Total $ 3,836,670 $ 3,734,131 $ 102,539
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ 102,539
Encumbered: $ 122,356
Paid to Date: $ 315,059
A/E Contract (DJG, Inc. – includes Add. & Renov.) Construction Contract
Original Agreement $428,444 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $ 0 Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $
TOTAL $428,444 TOTAL $
Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2013
Project: Murray High School Renovations
Description: Renovations of selected existing classrooms to enable "Enterprise" program students to
move from learning cottages to classrooms. Includes moving existing operation of ARC and their
records to former learning cottages and upgrade to science classroom. Some asbestos abatement will be
performed. Very challenging schedule with significant amount of logistical coordination.
Status:
Two bid packages currently being advertised: 1) Demolition/Asbestos Abatement; 2) Renovations.
Additional funding identified by Building Services in order to accelerate schedule. Planned tasks
include: coordinating various moves; issue notice to proceed for demolition/asbestos abatement by
5/3/13; provide 20-day notification for asbestos abatement to State by 5/7/13; start work on
demo/abatement 5/27/13; issue notice to proceed for renovation construction 6/6/13 with substantial
completion 8/9/13. Project is presently estimated to be over appropriated budget but we have included
alternates to help with this potential issue and expectations are that in this favorable bidding climate we
will receive very competitive pricing. There were eleven (11) potential bidders at pre-bid conference.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Pre-design Complete 03/01/13 03/01/13 0
Design Complete 03/28/13 04/05/13 8
Demo / Abatement Bid Opening 04/19/13 04/19/13 0
Renovation Bid Opening 04/25/13 05/01/13 6
Notice to Proceed - Demo/Abate 05/03/13 05/03/13 0
Notice to Proceed - Renovations 05/17/13 06/06/13 20
Demolition Complete 06/28/13 06/28/13 0
Building Infrastructure Complete 07/05/13 07/12/13 7
Finishes Complete 08/02/13 08/02/13 0
Substantial Completion 08/09/13 08/09/13 0
Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[March 2013]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 46,950 $ (46,950)
Future Appropriations $ 567,390 $ 567,390 $ -
Additional Source $ - $ 85,490 $ (85,490)
Total $ 567,390 $ 699,830 $ (132,440)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 58,900 $ 69,350 $ (10,450)
Hard Costs $ 454,000 $ 560,896 $ (106,896)
Contingency $ 54,490 $ 69,584 $ (15,094)
Total $ 567,390 $ 699,830 $ (132,440)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 18,155
Paid to Date: $ 29,641
A/E Contract (Rancorn Wildman Architects) Construction Contract
Original Agreement $46,950 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $ Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $ Pending Changes $
TOTAL $46,950 TOTAL $
Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2013
Project: McIntire County Office Building Brick Repointing
Description:
There are three projects involved in the scope. 1) Brick Repointing: removal and replacement of
existing damaged grout joints and expansion/caulk joints, also includes masonry repairs at concrete
banding/precast sills, helical pier installation and a thorough cleaning of all the masonry walls. 2)
Masonry Repairs: partial brick veneer replacement and installation of new spiral ties, includes
installation of steel lintels, replacement of existing precast concrete sills and partial replacement of
painted wood frieze board. 3) Front Stairs Waterproofing: removal of the existing masonry
waterproofing layer, repair of existing concrete substrate and installation of new 20 year warranty
waterproofing membrane.
Status:
Brick Repointing: Work substantially complete February 2013. Substantial completion date extended
previously for change order that was issued for installation of helical brick ties to stabilize brick façade.
Confirming completion of final punch list items. Final change order for window sill and trim replacement
being processed.
Masonry Repairs: Work complete – final completion achieved September 2012.
Front Stairs Waterproofing: Notice of Award issued to Strickland Waterproofing Company on March 29,
2013. A Notice to Proceed will be issued once the County executes the construction contract which is
expected to be April 2013. Project to be substantially complete 30-days from Notice to Proceed.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Brick Repointing:
Design Complete 02/29/12 02/29/12 0
Bid Opening Date 03/29/12 03/29/12 0
Notice to Proceed 05/15/12 05/21/12 6
Demolition Complete 11/12/12 01/11/13 60
Finishes Complete 11/12/12 01/31/13 80
Substantial Completion 11/12/12 02/15/13 95
Masonry Repairs:
Design Complete 02/29/12 02/29/12 0
Bid Opening Date 04/05/12 04/05/12 0
Notice to Proceed 05/15/12 05/15/12 0
Finishes Complete 11/06/12 08/23/12 -75
Substantial Completion 11/06/12 08/23/12 -75
Front Stairs Waterproofing:
Design Complete 01/03/13 01/03/13 0
Bid Opening Date 02/07/13 03/28/13 49
Notice to Proceed 03/07/13 04/28/13 52
Finishes Complete 04/06/13 05/28/13 52
Substantial Completion 04/06/13 05/28/13 52
Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[July 2011]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 948,460 $ 948,460 $ -
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 948,460 $ 948,460 $ -
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 28,460 $ 77,951 $ (49,491)
Hard Costs $ 750,000 $ 794,088 $ (44,088)
Contingency $ 170,000 $ 76,421 $ 93,579
Total $ 948,460 $ 948,460 $ -
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 110,661
Paid to Date: $ 755,710
A/E Contract – 3 projects (Heyward Boyd Architects) Construction Contract (Dominion Waterproofing)
Original Agreement $33,728 Bid Award (Repointing) $308,458
Approved Changes $ 0 Approved Changes $185,586
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ 2,849
TOTAL $33,728 TOTAL $496,893
Construction Contract (Simpson Unlimited)
Bid Award (Masonry) $178,480
Approved Changes $ 31,868
Pending Changes $ 0
TOTAL $210,348
Construction Change Orders: (Simpson)
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – CMU repair, EIFS repair, window
head & sill flashing
$26,253
2 – Cut brick at bow in wall, credit for
parking lot gouges
$5,615
Construction Change Orders: (Dominion)
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Installation of helical brick ties $183,770
2 – Additional driven pile $1,816
Pending – Window sill & trim
replacement
$2,849
Pending Construction Contract: (Strickland
Waterproofing)
Bid Award (Stairs) $86,700
Approved Changes $ 0
Pending Changes $ 0
TOTAL $86,700
Page 1 of 2 May 1, 2013
Project: Church Road Basin Stormwater Management Facility Retrofit
Description:
The Church Road Basin project includes maintenance and enhancements to the existing regional
stormwater management facility. The project scope includes survey, design, and construction. The
County is required (through the DCR-issued stormwater permit) to reduce pollutant discharges
(nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment) to impaired water having approved TMDLs, or pollution diets.
This project will help the County meet required pollutant reductions mandated for the Cheasapeake Bay
watershed.
Status:
A/E contract approved March 2013. Planned tasks include: survey site; complete design charrette; submit
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit application and obtain permit approval; and complete construction
documents. Anticipate issuing construction notice to proceed by 2nd quarter 2014; approximately 8 months
construction.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
60%-design Complete 07/26/13 08/28/13 33
Design Complete 11/08/13 11/20/13 12
Bid Opening Date 02/28/14 02/28/14 0
Notice to Proceed 04/01/14 04/01/14 0
Substantial Completion 12/14/14 12/14/14 0
Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[March 2013]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 430,250 $ 430,250 $ -
Future Appropriations $ 19,489 $ 19,489 $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 449,739 $ 449,739 $ -
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 98,739 $ 98,739 $ -
Hard Costs $ 265,000 $ 265,000 $ -
Contingency $ 86,000 $ 86,000 $ -
Total $ 449,739 $ 449,739 $ -
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 72,772
Paid to Date: $ -
A/E Contract ((Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract
Original Agreement $72,772 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $ 0 Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $
TOTAL $ TOTAL $
Project Vendor Contract Type Amount CO No.Scope
Date Approved
by CE Office
Reason:
>25% or >$50K
Police Firing Range Kimley-Horn & Associates A/E $34,708.00 3
Completion of a Sound Model study, construction of a
3 dimensional computer model to determine sound
levels within a 2 mile radius, conduct acoustic analysis
for up to 3 alternative noise mitigation designs,
produce a report based on this analysis, participate in
a teleconference to discuss the results of the study,
refine the existing range sketch, attend one meeting to
prepare for BOS presentation and develop and review
the feasibility and cost for up to 3 noise mitigation
construction options. CO generated based on BOS
request for information.
01/31/13 >25%
Courts Study PSA-Dewberry A/E $1,800.00 2
Attendance at a working meeting with key
stakeholders (Judges, Commonwealth Attorney,
Sheriff, Court Clerks, etc.) to provide professional
guidance based on knowledge of courts, courthouse
design, building industry, and courts project.
02/19/13 >25%
Change Orders Requiring County Executive Office Approval
January 1, 2013 - March 31, 2013
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Implementing Multi-year Capital Budgeting
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review of Projected FY 13 Carry-Over CIP Projects
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis and Henry; and
Ms. Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): Trevor Henry
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 1, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On July 11, 2012, the Board voted to support the following action regarding Multi-year CIP project appropriations:
Staff is to create a multi-year budget for CIP projects beginning in FY 14 such that project appropriations carry
forward until expended or de-obligated by the Board, with the exception of projects where no money has been
spent within the past fiscal year.
During the budget process, staff will provide a report about the status of projects to the Board. Unexpended
CIP funding will be re-appropriated as part of the annual appropriation process.
On March 13, 2013, the Board approved the Financial Management Policies, which were formally adopted on April 3, 2013
in the FY 2013/2014 budget resolution. The adopted policies include the following Capital Budget policies: “the County will
approve a multi-year capital budget in accordance with an approved Capital Improvements Program. All unspent and
unencumbered appropriations allocated for capital projects shall be re-appropriated for completion of the projects. Upon
completion of a capital project, the County Executive is authorized to close out the project and transfer any unencumbered
unexpended residual funds to the Capital Improvement Fund fund balance.”
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
Value of Stewardship: “To honor our role as stewards of the public trust by managing our …financial resources
respectfully and responsibly.”
DISCUSSION:
Based upon Board feedback during the March 7, 2013 Capital Budget work session and the approval of the policy
March 13, staff has reviewed and prepared a summary of FY 13 Capital Projects (Attachment A.). The financial
information in Attachment A is provided as of April 8 and includes pending budget, expenditure, and encumbrance
updates and corrections. The Estimated Carry Forward amount may not be equal to the Estimated Balance due to
pending changes and anticipated expenditures. The summary of information includes the project title, a brief
description of the status, an estimated financial summary, and the status of the estimated balance. The projects are
organized into different categories as follows:
Carry Forward into FY 14 Recommended: for those CIP projects or programs that are in progress and will
require the use of budgeted funds (expenditure or encumbrance) to complete or advance the project or
program;
No Carry Forward Recommended: for those CIP projects that are anticipated to be completed and will not
require any balance of the currently budgeted funds in the next fiscal year;
No Expenditure-Carry Forward Recommended: for those CIP projects that remain active or for which
contingency funding has previously been appropriated that have no programmed expenditures in the current
fiscal year but will require the budgeted funds in future years; and
No Expenditure-Opportunity: for those projects that are not active and are not projected to need the budgeted
funds in the planning period.
AGENDA TITLE: Implementing Multi-year Capital Budgeting
May 1, 2013
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
Based on the estimates in Attachment A, there are 38 Projects in the Carry Forward into FY 14 Recommended
category totaling $14,789,479 and 21 Projects in the No Expenditure-Carry Forward Recommended category totaling
$7,907,303. A total of $50,000 is anticipated to be returned to the CIP fund balance (deallocated), and another
$50,000 has been identified that could be deallocated.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board implement the County’s multi-year CIP policy for the CIP project budgets that are
included in Attachment A and direct staff to include in the June 2013 FY 14 Appropriation Resolution:
(a) an appropriation that will carry forward funding for the currently funded capital project budgets in FY 13 that
are recommended to carry forward into FY 14 in an amount not to exceed a total of $15,000,000 [Carry
Forward Into FY 14 Recommended Category] and
(b) an appropriation for those CIP projects that have not incurred expenditures or encumbrances in FY 13 but are
recommended to carry forward into FY 14 [No Expenditure-Carry Forward Recommended Category]. The total
amount of these CIP projects is estimated at $7,907,303.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - FY 13 Capital Projects Summary
Return to agenda
Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures
Estimate
FY 13 Encumbrance
Estimate
FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated
Return
Estimated
Liquidation
Description
Carry Over Recommended
ACE Program In-Progress $761,178.15 $9,654.00 $0.00 $751,524.15 $751,524.15 $0.00 $0.00 No additional expenditures are expected in the current fiscal year;
the funding supports the acquisitions for the next round applicants
due 4/30/13.
Apparatus Repl Program: E. RIVANNA ENGINE
21
In-Progress $850,500.00 $31,662.19 $713,630.34 $105,207.47 $80,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 The apparatus is currently under construction and is anticipated to
be complete August 2013.
Apparatus Repl Program: MONTICELLO-
AMBULANCE
In-Progress $288,750.00 $0.00 $2,401.50 $286,348.50 $288,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 Upon the approval of the recent appropriation (March 2013), design
of the apparatus began with an anticipated completion of December
2013. Funds are estimated to be encumbered before the close of
the fiscal year.
Apparatus Repl Program: SCOTTSVILLE-AMB
706
In-Progress $288,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 $288,750.00 $288,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 Upon the approval of the recent appropriation (March 2013), design
of the apparatus began with an anticipated completion of December
2013. Funds are estimated to be encumbered before the close of
the fiscal year.
Apparatus Repl Program: SYSTEM
AMBULANCE
In-Progress $292,506.00 $55,398.35 $45,712.13 $191,395.52 $200,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Upon the approval of the recent appropriation (March 2013), design
of the apparatus began with an anticipated completion of December
2013. Funds are estimated to be encumbered before the close of
the fiscal year.
Church Road Basin In-Progress $430,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $430,250.00 $426,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project was recently initiated to support maintenance and
enhancements to an existing regional stormwater management
facility. The project scope includes survey, design, and construction.
The design phase should be completed by November 2013;
construction will follow during FY14 fall/winter. The funds were
allocated from the Stormwater Management Program. Expenditures
are expected in the current year.
City-County Branch Library
Repair/Maintenance
In-Progress $197,677.59 $14,292.60 $70,186.58 $113,198.41 $109,999.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports the County's share of repair/maintenance projects at
Central and Gordon Avenue Library. Unused project management
fees to be deappropriated and returned to fund balance.
Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal In-Progress $450,000.00 $80,000.00 $165,000.00 $205,000.00 $370,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is on-time and on budget and is expected to be
complete December 2013.
Court Square Maint/Repl Program In-Progress $504,492.24 $153,523.89 $62,724.19 $288,244.16 $352,484.89 $0.00 $0.00 This supports work identified in facility assessment, work orders,
and requests from the Judges which includes: cyclical and interior
maintenance; HVAC and HVAC control replacement; exterior
building maintenance and repairs; and security upgrades.
Crozet Avenue North Sidewalk In-Progress $487,208.17 $31,767.71 $9,865.68 $445,574.79 $400,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports: 1) Safe Routes to School portion - anticipate
advertising for bid May 2013; substantial completion September
2013. 2) Crozet Avenue North Sidewalk (Revenue Sharing) -
anticipate advertising for bid July 2013; substantial completion
November 2013. This supports the a portion of the County's FY 13
Revenue Sharing funds.
Crozet Library In-Progress $7,173,920.76 $3,386,613.04 $2,897,562.36 $889,745.36 $400,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 The Crozet Library is under construction and estimated to be
substantially complete July 2013.
Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures
Estimate
FY 13 Encumbrance
Estimate
FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated
Return
Estimated
Liquidation
Description
Crozet Streetscape Phase II In-Progress $2,008,597.10 $78,809.39 $1,002,525.42 $927,262.29 $900,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility relocations are currently underway and are estimated to be
complete before the end of FY13. Substantial completion of the
Streetscape project is approximately 14 months from notice to
proceed. The bid opening is estimated for the second quarter of
calendar year 2013.
Dam Break Study In-Progress $59,100.00 $0.00 $59,100.00 $0.00 $59,100.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports a dam break analyses and map of the resulting
inundation zones for three of our regulated dams: two at Mint
Springs Park and the Hollymead Dam. This is required to meet DCR -
Dam Safety regulations. The work should be completed by July 1,
2012. The expenditure should be recorded in the current fiscal year
but may be recorded in FY 14.
Fire Department Contingency Contingency $59,084.11 $4,582.18 $0.00 $54,501.93 $54,501.93 $0.00 $0.00 This contingency supports major, unexpected repairs to County-
owned fire and rescue apparatus.
Firearms Range In-Progress $1,085,224.73 $158,160.63 $12,702.00 $914,362.10 $914,362.10 $0.00 $0.00 The project is currenlty on hold. It is being refocused from an
outdoor training facility to an indoor facility. The amount expended
to date on the project will not be reimbursed by the City.
Expenditures made in FY13 will have little impact on the revised
project scope. Since those expenditures were related to the design
and planning of an outdoor facility, the focus on an indoor facility
will require new design fees and associated costs.
Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers Repl In-Progress $22,356.41 $0.00 $15,856.00 $6,500.41 $22,356.41 $0.00 $0.00 This project is in progress and is anticipated to be complete in
August 2013.
Fontaine Avenue Start FY 13 $102,189.01 $317.25 $0.00 $101,871.76 $70,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports the installation of a short sidewalk (~160')
from the Research Park to the City line (right-of-way required). This
project closes gaps between sidewalks which may create safety
issues if left uncorrected. This project will be designed in-house and
will be substantially complete 30-45 days from notice to proceed.
Bid opening is anticipated to be mid-May.
GIS Project In-Progress $415,381.86 $16,819.75 $33,831.25 $364,730.86 $330,730.86 $0.00 $0.00 The GIS Project is on time and on budget.
Greenway Program In-Progress $55,775.76 $9,636.30 $0.00 $46,139.46 $46,139.46 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports the County's match for a grant with the
Department of Conservation-Recreation Trails Program to enhance
trail opportunities at Preddy Creek Park. The grant award is
anticipated to be given in May 2013. Upon award, the project
design is scheduled for summer 2013, and the project completion is
estimated to be by June 2014. No expenditures are projected.
Greer E S Renov/Add Phase II Substantially
Complete
$1,370,938.38 $1,244,238.36 $111,043.43 $15,656.59 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is substantially complete. Minor punch list and
miscellaneous items will be completed by August 2013.
Hollymead-Powell Creek Drive Start FY 13 $209,163.59 $141.00 $0.00 $209,022.59 $160,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports the completion of the sidewalk connection from
Hollymead to Sutherland Schools. The required right-of-way has
been donated. This project will be designed in-house and will be
substantially complete 30-45 days from notice to proceed. Bid
opening is anticipated to be mid-May.
Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures
Estimate
FY 13 Encumbrance
Estimate
FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated
Return
Estimated
Liquidation
Description
Ivy Fire Station In-Progress $2,886,165.31 $1,271,851.38 $588,527.64 $1,025,786.29 $325,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is currently under construction and is expected to be
substantially complete April 2013. The purchase of equipment and
apparatus is expected to be complete in August 2013.
Ivy Landfill Remediation In-Progress $1,157,351.34 $334,146.00 $111,382.00 $711,823.34 $711,823.34 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports the Memorandum of Understanding for the
County's share of ongoing environmental remediation at the Ivy
Material Utilization Center, which is managed by the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority (RSWA)
Old Jail Facility Maintenance In-Progress $42,941.83 $4,328.66 $7,258.28 $31,354.89 $7,258.28 $31,354.89 $0.00 This supports the continual effort to maintain this building and
grounds in a state of arrested decay. The remaining balance will not
be needed.
Parks Maintenance In-Progress $537,505.00 $165,806.74 $0.00 $371,698.26 $104,061.62 $0.00 $0.00 This supports the County's share/co-sponsored agreement with the
Charlottesville Parks and Recreation toward the design and
construction of the finial new skate park being relocated at McIntrie
Park. Project delay due to City Council's approval of the McIntire
Park Finial Master Plan. Project design is to begin in May 2013 and
the anticipated project completion date is September 2013.
Places 29 Master Plan Future $1,199,664.35 $14,078.88 $0.00 $1,185,585.47 $1,170,921.12 $0.00 $0.00 No further expenditures are expected in FY 13; the carry-over is to
support Berkmar Dr. design, crosswalks at Rio Rd./Fashion Square
and Hydraulic Rd. sidewalk extension (supplements Revenue Sharing
and proffers).
Police Technology Upgrade In-Progress $740,448.13 $5,176.76 $0.00 $735,271.37 $730,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 A portion of the custom system software for the mobile product did
not meet the Police Department's requirements. The PD is in
negotiations with the vendor regarding the project balance and
future license fees. Following negotiations, the PD will be expected
to deliver a portion of the remaining balance and license fees to the
vendor.
The PD is currently in the RFP development phase for the purchase
of a regional CAD/RMS/Mobile integrated product. When
negotiations are complete with the current vendor, the PD will
request a change in the description for the remaining funds to be
used for this new project.
Public Works Facility Maintenance-General In-Progress $518,095.29 $184,412.06 $38,387.62 $295,295.61 $388,376.04 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports several cyclical projects are scheduled along
with emergency generator repairs, and ADA improvements.
Records Management Future $206,323.12 $15,986.81 $3,800.00 $186,536.31 $153,494.93 $0.00 $0.00 This request is in support of the purchase of equipment/software,
professional services and temporary labor for assistance in
document conversion in the County's Community Development
Department identified in the five-year Records Management
Implementation Plan and Schedule as recommended by the Records
Management Steering Committee. This request also includes
services/training required to implement the new Laserfiche Records
Management System. The Records Management Project is on
schedule and currently underway.
Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures
Estimate
FY 13 Encumbrance
Estimate
FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated
Return
Estimated
Liquidation
Description
School CIP Maintenance In-Progress $4,613,802.51 $3,901,399.71 $234,371.04 $478,031.76 $320,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports projects that are being designed and procured this
Spring. Construction will be completed by August 2013. These
include roof replacements, HVAC replacements, and a renovation at
Murray High School. Additional funding is carried over for ADA
improvements (as needed).
Seminole Trail VFD Renov/Add In-Progress $3,824,946.80 $289,747.89 $147,667.25 $3,387,531.66 $3,095,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is currently in design; it is anticipated to be bid in May
2013 with a substantial completion ~12 months from notice to
proceed.
Sheriff's Office Maint/Repl In-Progress $18,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports cyclical maintenance. No carry over funds are
estimated.
South Pantops Start FY 14 $475,677.03 $17,933.06 $1,250.00 $456,493.98 $425,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports sidewalk construction for South Pantops. The
anticipated advertisment for bid is July 2013 with substantial
completion in December 2013. This supports a portion of the
County's 2013 Revenue Sharing Application.
Storage Lease-Schools In-Progress $150,000.00 $77,418.80 $0.00 $72,581.20 $5,870.00 $0.00 $0.00 The storage lease payments are on-time and within budget. The
balance is requested to support the projected increase.
Tax/Rev System Replacement In-Progress $880,000.00 $237,244.45 $592,755.55 $50,000.00 $648,175.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is on time and on budget; the expected completion is
January 2014.
Transportation Improvement - Local Active $726,690.16 $0.00 $9,500.00 $717,190.16 $382,800.00 $0.00 $329,200.00 Approximately $382,000 supports the FY13 Revenue Sharing match
for Hydraulic & Barracks Road sidewalks. As identified during the
Boards March 2013 CIP work session, $329,200 will be reallocated
to the transportation revenue sharing for the FY15 Revenue Sharing
match.
VMF Lifts In-Progress $31,068.93 $0.00 $0.00 $31,068.93 $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project resumes in June 2013 and will be complete by August
2013.
WAHS Stormwater Improvement In-Progress $102,038.75 $18,239.85 $15,218.00 $68,580.90 $62,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is currently in design and is anticipated to be bid in June
2013 and substantially complete 3 months from notice to proceed.
38 Total Projects $35,223,762.42 $11,813,387.68 $6,962,258.26 $16,448,116.48 $14,789,479.13 $31,354.89 $329,200.00
Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures
Estimate
FY 13 Encumbrance
Estimate
FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated
Return
Estimated
Liquidation
Description
No Carry Over Projected
Access Albemarle Complete $145,750.00 $135,153.15 $10,540.00 $56.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Project is near completion; the current phase concluding included
an upgrade to BSO and GP.
Administrative Technology In-Progress $183,000.00 $154,114.11 $0.00 $28,885.89 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The project is estimated to be completed and funding exhausted by
the close of the fiscal year.
Apparatus Repl Program: HOLLYMEAD
AMBULANCE 121
Substantially
Complete
$283,500.00 $238,654.63 $44,845.37 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The purchase and delivery of the apparatus is complete.
Apparatus Repl Program: CARS - AMBULANCE
#1
Complete $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The estimate reflects the balance of CARS Ambulance #1 offseting
the purchase of CARS Ambulance #3.
Apparatus Repl Program: CARS - AMBULANCE
# 2
Complete $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The estimate reflects the balance of CARS Ambulance #2 offseting
the purchase of CARS Ambulance #3.
Apparatus Repl Program: CARS - AMBULANCE
#3
Substantially
Complete
$7,494.00 $6,069.71 $1,424.29 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The purchase and delivery of the vehicle is offset by the funds
remaining from CARS Ambulance #1 and #2.
Apparatus Repl Program: STONY POINT -
ENGINE # 61
Substantially
Complete
$739,500.00 $671,173.56 $526.95 $67,799.49 $0.00 $65,000.00 $0.00 The estimate reflects the balance of CARS Ambulance #1 and #2
offseting the purchase of CARS Ambulance #3.
Brownsville E S Media Center Complete $65,713.33 $65,713.33 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is complete.
Byrom Park Substantially
Complete
$1,117.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,117.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports trails at Byrom Park and is expected to be
complete June 2013.
COB McIntire Brick Repointing In-Progress $731,182.33 $499,674.43 $44,582.34 $186,925.56 $0.00 $70,000.00 $0.00 The masonry repair and brick repointing phases of the project is
complete. The final phase is waterproofing the front stairs which
will be substantially complete 30 days from notice to proceed. The
bid opening for front stairs waterproofing was on March 28, 2013.
This project is anticipated to be completed this fiscal year.
COB McIntire Parking Lot Biofilter Complete $13,817.65 $2,430.75 $0.00 $11,386.90 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is complete and will return the available balance to the
Stormwater Management Program.
County Server Infrastructure Upgrade In-Progress $405,000.00 $37,525.15 $13,907.00 $353,567.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project currently supports three major hardware purchases
including storage, HyperV environment, and wireless infrastructure.
These purchases are expected to be complete by the end of the
fiscal year.
Court Square Enhancment Complete $10,823.06 $7,502.80 $3,269.47 $50.79 $0.00 $50.79 $0.00 The Courts Study is complete.
Crozet Greenways In-Progress $26,577.00 $0.00 $0.00 $26,577.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project support various projects within the Crozet Greenway
Recreational trail system including uniform signage(regulation,
directional, naming), Kiosk, boardwalks, and bridges. Projects are
currently in design and estimated to be undertaken starting in April
2013
Downtown Crozet Wetlands Project Substantially
Complete
$120,064.50 -$28,763.51 $118,605.05 $30,222.96 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is substantiall complete. Any balance remaining will be
returned to the Stormwater Management Program.
Due Diligence Study Complete $22,000.00 $19,554.00 $1,676.00 $770.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The due diligence study for the MJH Rio Road parcel is complete.
Fire Rescue Lifepacks In-Progress $402,979.00 $61,161.48 $341,817.52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is expected to be completed before the end of fiscal
year 2013.
Fire Rescue Turnout Gear Complete $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is complete.
General Transportation Project Management Active $16,920.41 $3,912.75 $0.00 $13,007.66 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 All budgeted project management services not expended will be
returned.
Instructional Technology Complete $576,017.88 $576,017.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is expected to be completed before the end of fiscal
year 2013.
J & DR Court Maint/Repl Not Active $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0
Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures
Estimate
FY 13 Encumbrance
Estimate
FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated
Return
Estimated
Liquidation
Description
Local Area Network In-Progress $700,000.00 $127,163.01 $182,016.76 $390,820.23 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The LAN upgrade is currently under construction and is scheduled to
be complete by June 30th, 2013. Additional material and
equipment orders will be placed soon which should exhaust the
remaining funds.
Microsoft Upgrade Complete $73,719.09 $23,876.25 $3,539.48 $46,303.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is complete.
Moore's Creek Septage Receiving Complete $109,441.00 $109,441.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The payment for FY 13 is complete.
Neighborhood Plan Contingency Reallocated $50,239.61 $0.00 $0.00 $50,239.61 $0.00 $0.00 $50,239.61 These funds will be re-allocated to the Transportation Revenu
Sharing Program as identified during the Boards March 2013 CIP
Work Session.
Pantops Fire Station Complete $266,620.00 $243,994.64 $19,000.00 $3,625.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is complete.
Police Mobile Data Computers Complete $144,400.00 $77,367.00 $0.00 $67,033.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The FY 13 replacements/purchases will be completed by the close of
Fiscal Year 2013. There is no projected balance to carry over or
return. If any balance remains, it will be returned.
Police Radio System Substantially
Complete
$42,731.00 $38,775.88 $385.29 $3,569.83 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The FY 13 replacements/purchases will be completed by the close of
Fiscal Year 2013. There is no projected balance to carry over or
return. If any balance remains, it will be returned.
Police Video Cameras Substantially
Complete
$140,793.75 $140,577.17 $0.00 $216.58 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 The FY 13 replacements/purchases will be completed by the close of
Fiscal Year 2013. There is no projected balance to carry over or
return. If any balance remains, it will be returned.
Poll Books Complete $62,000.00 $62,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is complete.
Preddy Creek Park Substantially
Complete
$13,094.76 $11,128.75 $0.00 $1,966.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports trails at Preddy Creek Park and is expected to
be complete June 2013.
Project Management Services, Future-General
Government
Active $12,719.67 $0.00 $0.00 $12,719.67 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 All budgeted project management services not expended will be
returned.
Project Management Services, Future-Schools Active $120,516.59 $0.00 $0.00 $120,516.59 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 All budgeted project management services not expended will be
returned.
Rivanna Trail Bridges Substantially
Complete
$8,460.20 $3,630.75 $0.00 $4,829.45 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports the completion of the project.
Solid Waste In-Progress $32,000.00 $30,981.05 $218.95 $800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is expected to be complete before the close of the fiscal
year.
State Technology Grant Complete $786,000.00 $786,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is complete.
Storage Lease-General Government In-Progress $62,000.00 $30,107.32 $0.00 $31,892.68 $0.00 $1,383.94 $0.00 The storage lease payments are on-time and within budget.
VFD Contingency Complete $41,174.57 $0.00 $20,684.81 $20,489.76 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Full balance will be utilized and appropriation request for additional
funds will be forthcoming to OMB from ACFR.
Water Resoures Support Active $6,220.70 $3,983.25 $0.00 $2,237.45 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 All budgeted project management services not expended will be
returned.
Woodbrook Lagoon Improvement Complete $82,255.07 $4,863.32 $0.00 $77,391.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is complete. The remaining balance will be returned to
the Stormwater Management Program.
41 Total Projects $6,517,842.17 $4,155,783.61 $807,039.28 $1,555,019.28 $0.00 $136,434.73 $50,239.61
Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures
Estimate
FY 13 Encumbrance
Estimate
FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated
Return
Estimated
Liquidation
Description
No Expenditure-Carry Over Recommended
Avon Street In-Progress $70,992.22 $0.00 $0.00 $70,992.22 $70,992.22 $0.00 $0.00 This project budget was identified during the FY 14 Capital Work
session with the Board as a source of the FY 15 Revenue Sharing
Match. Avon Street Sidewalks is in the early stages to support
design and construction for sidewalk, curb and gutter at Avon Street
from Lakeside Apartments to City limits; however, the project is not
fully funded so start date is dependant on funding.
City View Project In-Progress $8,339.32 $0.00 $0.00 $8,339.32 $8,339.12 $0.00 $0.00 The City View Project is on schedule and currently underway in the
form of an assessment that is being conducted using encumbered
funds under the CIP GIS Project (GIS Application & Web Presence
Needs Assessment) as the projects overlap and compliment one
another. This will provide enhancements to the C-View Web
application to facilitate public access for viewing/processing
applications on-line.
County Library Facilities Repair/Maintenance Active $27,877.59 $0.00 $0.00 $27,877.59 $24,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports capital maintenance at the current Crozet Library and
the Scottsville Library. The work scheduled for FY 13 has been re-
scheduled for FY 14.
Crozet Main Street Not Started $92,084.62 $0.00 $0.00 $92,084.62 $92,084.62 $0.00 $0.00 The intended use of funds is to support extension of Library Avenue
to the proposed Crozet Eastern Avenue; however,
design/construction of the Crozet Eastern Avenue is not currently
funded. The available funds may be used to extend or connect
developer-funded/built portions of Library Avenue to existing
developments.
ECC Computer Aided Dispsatch System In-Progress $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports the CAD replacement project originally esimated to
total $1,320.000.00. In order to save CIP funding the ECC
Management Board decided to fund the CAD Consultant part of the
project with $201,000.00 from the ECC Fund Balance Account. The
project RFP will be complete in July 2013. This fully intergrated
project will now include fire & police RMS systems, a regional jail
system and upgraded mobile data system. The complete project
should be complete by the end of 2014. Based on the original
$1,320,000.00 amount for CAD the jurisdictional breakdown shound
be: Albemarle 48.45% or $639,540.00, Charlottesville 36.78% or
$485,496.00, University of Virginia 14.77% or $194,964.00. This is
based on the new updated ECC Funding Formula.
ECC Emergency Telephone System In-Progress $1,343,208.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,343,208.00 $1,343,208.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project is just beginning to be underway. The original plan had
been to sole source the equipment from the current vendor but ECC
is now going to purchase off an existing contract from another
locality and are presently working with purchasing staff with the
process. This project should be totally complete by December 31,
2013. Updated breakdown by jurisdiction based on the new ECC
Funding Formula: Albemarle County 48.45% or $650,784.28,
Charlottesville 36.78% or $494,031.82, University of Virginia 14.77%
or $198,391.82
Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures
Estimate
FY 13 Encumbrance
Estimate
FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated
Return
Estimated
Liquidation
Description
Health Department Maint/Repl Active $32,940.00 $0.00 $0.00 $32,940.00 $32,940.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports unscheduled repairs and preventative maintenance of
the jointly-owned Health Department building
Keene Landfill Contingency $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 This supports contingency funding for environmental conditions.
Staff recommends reducing the budget based on recorded
environmental conditions. It is anticipated this fund can be reduced
by $10,000 per year for the next 4 years.
Multi-Facility Maintenance In-Progress $364,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $364,000.00 $360,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project was recently initiated to support maintenance to
several existing regional stormwater management facilities. The
project scope includes survey, design, and construction. The design
phase should be completed by early summer 2013; construction will
follow during FY14 summer/fall. The funds were allocated from the
Stormwater Management Program.
Pantops Master Plan Future $123,395.80 $0.00 $0.00 $123,395.80 $108,731.45 $0.00 $0.00 No further expenditures expected in FY 13. The carry-over is to fund
crosswalks at 250/20 and 250/Rolkin and traffic calming in
Fontana(total costs will be dependent on designs)
Public Works Facility Maintenance-Jessup
House
Active $41,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $41,250.00 $31,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports the County's share of exterior restoration
which has been re-scheduled from FY 13 to FY 14.
Public Works Facility Maintenance-Wheeler
Building
Active $31,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 $31,750.00 $41,240.00 $0.00 $0.00 This project supports the County's share of the HVAC and Window
replacements which have been re-scheduled from FY 13 to FY 14.
Recreation Facility Active $2,030,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,030,000.00 $2,030,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports the County's committed contribution and agreement
entered into with the YMCA in January 2008. The actual start and
completion dates are unknown at this time.
Revenue Sharing Program In-Progress $2,500,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,500,000.00 $2,500,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports the County's portion of the revenue sharing program
for: (a) $1,500,000 for Broomley Bridge and (b) $1,000,000 for the
RS2014 Application
Roadway Landscaping Contingency $105,289.35 $881.25 $0.00 $104,408.10 $90,625.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports continued maintenance on our entrance cooridors.
Once exhausted, no additional funds will be requested.
Sidewalk Contingency Contingency $83,735.54 $0.00 $0.00 $83,735.54 $83,735.54 $0.00 $0.00 This supports unforeseen project costs of the current sidewalk
projects or of sidewalk projects/improvements with no funding that
arise as a result of safety issues.
Stormwater Management Program Contingency $592,469.71 $0.00 $0.00 $592,469.71 $417,552.86 $0.00 $266,445.00 FY13 Project Budgets reallocation totals $845,100. Projects included
are $426,000.00 for Church Road Basin; $360,000.00 for
Multi-Facility Maintenance; and $59,100 for Dam Study
FY13 obligation totals $266,445 to support FY14 transfer to
Stormwater fund.
FY 13 completed projects will return (add to the budget) $91,528.
Remaining balance is earmarked for Crozet Streetscape Phase II
Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures
Estimate
FY 13 Encumbrance
Estimate
FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated
Return
Estimated
Liquidation
Description
Stormwater TMDL Study Future $130,640.14 $0.00 $0.00 $130,640.14 $125,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Project initiation postponed due to State delaying both guidance
and deadlines; State deadline is now July 1, 2014
Street lights Future $35,231.74 $0.00 $0.00 $35,231.74 $35,231.74 $0.00 $0.00 This supports the design and installation of streetlights on US250
West at the Clover Lawn/Harris Teeter/Cory Farms Subdivision to
address traffic and pedestrian issues. Alternatively, these funds may
be needed to address unforeseen priority lighting issues that may
arise in FY 14.
Sunridge Road Complete $6,696.42 $35.25 $0.00 $6,661.17 $6,696.42 $0.00 $0.00 The project is substantially complete. The remainnig funds will
specifically be used for maintenance or to repair any damage until
the road is accepted by VDoT. As-Built plans are being prepared in-
house. Goal is have road accepted into the State System by the end
of August 2013.
Voting Machine Replacements Start FY 14 $305,175.77 $0.00 $0.00 $305,175.77 $305,175.77 $0.00 $0.00 The purchase of the voting machines is in-progress and expected to
be complete in August 2015. The scheduled phase of purchases will
beginin July/August of 2013 for use in absentee voting in November
2013 general election. If the system works well, plan to purchase
additional optical scan voting machines for use in all 28 regular
precincts.
21 Total Projects $8,175,076.22 $916.50 $0.00 $8,174,159.72 $7,907,302.74 $50,000.00 $266,445.00
Projects by Recommended Carry Over Project Status FY 13 Budget Estimate FY 13 Expenditures
Estimate
FY 13 Encumbrance
Estimate
FY 13 Balance Estimate Estimated Carry Over Estimated
Return
Estimated
Liquidation
Description
No Expenditure-Opportunity
Rivanna Master Plan Inactive $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 This supports further development of Old Mill Trail and other
contengencies but currently no specific projects are identified.
Summary $49,966,680.82 $15,970,087.79 $7,769,297.54 $26,227,295.49 $22,746,781.87 $217,789.62 $645,884.61
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Courts Study Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Courts Study Results Update
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis and Henry
PRESENTER (S): Trevor Henry
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 1, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County contracted with PSA-Dewberry, Inc. to conduct a needs assessment and to develop renovation and/or new
building options for the provision of court facilities, to include the Circuit, General District and Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Districts Courts, in order to assist the County in determining its next step in addressing the space needs for the
courts. At its February 6, 2013 meeting, the Board received the results of the study and PSA-Dewberry’s draft report. The
report detailed three options studied by the consultants, including scope, design concept, pros/cons, and conceptual
square foot cost estimates. The Board generally favored the option to remain downtown, but noted concerns about the
lack of parking. The Board directed staff to meet with the key courts stakeholders on the project to confirm the timeline for
necessary improvements and to initiate discussions with the City on the disposition of the jointly owned Levy Building and
options for improved parking to accommodate the courts remaining downtown.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
A follow-up meeting with the consultants and key stakeholders (Judges, Commonwealth Attorney, Sheriff, Court
Clerks, County Executive, etc.) occurred on March 28, 2013. See Attachment A for the minutes of that meeting. The
purpose of the meeting was to better understand current security and operational issues and the sense of urgency to
move the courts renovation project forward. Staff reviewed the study process and findings, reviewed the two primary
options, and discussed the potential phasing of the project and the likely CIP process timeline.
There was unanimous agreement among the courts stakeholders that to remain downtown is the only viable option to
avoid significant disruptions to all court functions and efficiencies that would occur if any portion of the courts were to
be located off-site. Further, there was strong agreement of the stakeholders to act as soon as possible to address the
current operational constraints. Staff anticipates that it may take up to eight years to complete all phases of this CIP
project from the time initial design funding is authorized.
Staff will report in more detail the results of this meeting and overview the expected timeline for completion of all
phases at the May 1, 2013 Board meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The total budget impact will be dependent on which option the Board chooses to pursue.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
No action is needed by the Board at this time. Staff is continuing to work with the City on disposition of the Levy
properties and the development of a parking solution. Staff will provide an update on the outcome of these
discussions as well as a detailed timeline and schedule of probable cost to complete the project at a future Board
meeting. Assuming discussions with the City are successful, staff will bring back requests for appropriations for
property acquisition and design services associated with early phases of the project.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Minutes from the 28 March 2013 Stakeholder Meeting
Return to agenda
1
Trevor Henry
From:Trevor Henry
Sent:Monday, April 08, 2013 2:27 PM
To:Diane Mullins; Cheryl Higgins; Denise Lunsford; wgb8329@comcast.net; J. E. "Chip" Harding;
Debra Shipp; T.D. Layman; 'jbeard@cha.idc.viginial.gov'; 'jlsnook@snookandhaughey.com'
Cc:pstewart@courts.state.va.us; Stacey Trader; Tom Foley; Bill Letteri; Larry Davis; Marsha
Davis; Bower, Meg; Doug Walker; Montie Breeden; Beight, Jim L.; 'David Puckett'
Subject:Court Study Update Mtg. - March 28th - MINUTES
Attachments:Albemarle_Courts_Study_stakeholdermtg_28March13_Presentation.pdf
Importance:High
Categories:[Local Inbox/Work/Projects/Local Gov/Courts]
Tom, et al.
Thanks again for adjusting your schedules to meet on March 28th to discuss the future of the courts. As mentioned by
Bill in a previous email I’m providing a summary of the meeting below and have attached a .pdf of the PowerPoint
presentation used by Staff and the consultants to walk through the study results. Also, we have the architects
conceptual test fit boards at our office for future reference.
The following personnel attended at the meeting:
Representing the Court: Judge Higgins, Judge Barkley, Commonwealth Attorney Lunsford, Debbi Shipp (Clerk of the
court), TD Layman (Sherriff’s Office)
Representing Court Functions: James Beard (Public Defenders Office), Lloyd Snook (Bar Association)
Representing County staff: Tom Foley (County Exec), Bill Letteri (Assistant County Exec), Larry Davis (County Attorney),
Trevor Henry (OFD), Montie Breeden (OFD)
Study Consultants: Jim Beight (PSA-Dewberry), Meg Bower (PSA-Dewberry), Dave Puckett (FPW Architects)
AGENDA
1.Purpose of Meeting/State of Affairs
2.Process/Findings
3.Options/Test Fits
4.Potential Phasing
5.CIP Process/Potential Timeline
6.Discussion/Comments
7.Wrap up
Notes from the Meeting:
Mr. Foley led off the meeting stating the overall purpose was to ensure the Courts key stakeholders and Staff were
operating off the same assumptions regarding urgency of action for the courts planning. Tom provided a summary of
why the county commissioned the study, which has provided an assessment of current conditions, a forecast of future
needs and potential site options to meet the long-term vision of the Courts. Tom noted some BOS members had
communicated to him a sense of less urgency in the timeline and need for action after our Feb BOS meeting based on
feedback by Courts staff during that work session. Tom relayed direction from the BOS, which is to better determine
urgency of the decision while working with the city to reach an acceptable agreement on the disposition of the Levy
Building and providing some relief to the current parking conditions downtown. Tom did note the BOS also is keeping
the split option on the table staff in the event the City is unable to meet some of the BOS specific requirements.
Meg Bower from PSA-Dewberry lead a discussion on the process the consultants went through to analyze current
conditions and a brief description of the methodology of caseload forecasting that drove the space needs. The analysis
included some additional sensitivity analysis that looked beyond 2030 and analyzed a population growth to 150K. Needs
2
were described in terms of “court sets” (courtroom, chambers, courtroom holding, jury deliberation, and any other
requisite areas) instead of simply courtrooms, and the judicial time was clarified to include both resident judges and
visiting judge time. The forecast concluded a need for two Circuit Court sets both now and into the future. The General
District Court was determined to need two court sets now, with the future forecast either staying at two (with higher
utilization) or growing to three.
Jim Beight from PSA-Dewberry walked through the “test fit” process of the Downtown and Split Options. Due to some of
the constraints of the existing conditions of the Historic Court House, the consultants conducted a deeper analysis of the
site as part of the test fit process to ensure all components of the Court sets and three paths of circulation could be met.
Their findings confirmed the Historic Court house and existing annex could contain the necessary functions for two
Circuit Court sets, Clerk’s office and proper separation of uses (Judiciary, Public, Defendants).
In either scenario (Remain Downtown option or Split Option), the Historic Courthouse and existing annex are planned to
be renovated for two Circuit Court Sets. In the downtown option, it is envisioned the Levy Building (Old Opera House)
would be renovated to Support the Commonwealth Attorney’s office and its rear addition would be demolished with a
new wing constructed for adding two to three court sets for the General District Court. The study assumed full build out
which included shell space for a future court set. After some discussion it was agreed on Two Court sets would likely be
needed at the 2030 timeframe (one resident and one to be used by visiting judge(s) as currently done), with the
potential of needing one additional court set in the long-term future. There was doubt state funding would support the
third Judgeship through a dedicated resident judge; regardless, if caseload increases, the courtroom would be needed.
The Split option has the same renovation of the Historic Court for Circuit Court needs and assumes a new construction
project at the county’s Millcreek property for the General District Court and Sherriff’s office. The Split option would need
further analysis of where to locate the Commonwealth attorney.
David Puckett (FPW Architects) – led a discussion of potential phasing for the two options.
The first option would be an Incremental Phasing of the Downtown scenario which provides the most immediate relief
to the most taxed groups (CA, Circuit Ct Clerk, Land Records), but may have issues related to adjacent construction
activities requiring either tolerance to noise or premium construction at night. The phasing scenario is as follows:
First step requires design and renovation of the Levy Opera house for the relocation of the Commonwealth
Attorney. Once the CA office is vacated and relocated, the basement of the Historic courthouse could be
renovated to allow the relocation of the Circuit Court Clerk and records to their permanent location.
Second step is the demolition of the Levy rear addition and construction of the new General District court and
Clerk’s office.
Third step is the renovation of the Historic Court house and annex, and re-occupancy by Circuit Court.
The second option proposed is essentially two big projects, Dave presented the split option.
Design and construction of new General District courthouse at the proposed Millcreek site. Move the Gen Dist
Court, Clerk and Sherriff’s office to Millcreek. A solution to keep the CA downtown will need to be determined,
possibly renovation of the Levy Opera House, other leased space or relocate to the now vacated Sherriff’s office
Renovate the historic Court for Circuit court use as described above.
Trevor provided a review of the CIP process and stressed the importance of getting the BOS to a decision point to all
direction to staff to initiate the CIP request. Trevor reviewed a potential timeline that showed the major design efforts
and construction efforts taking four + years to get the first phase of the project completed and up to 8 years to complete
all phases.
Discussion points:
Unanimous consensus among the Courts stakeholders to remain downtown as the only viable option without significant
disruptions to all court functions and efficiencies if any portion of the courts were to be located off-site.
3
Lloyd Snook suggested the possibility of exploring a collaborative solution with the City for ensuring full utilization of
whatever is built. He mentioned that the City is likely to be exploring options for expansion during the same 20-year
window. It was commented that the City Circuit Court has expansion capabilities on their current site.
Judge Barkley commented and questioned about the ability to share resources with the City Gen Dist court. He also
strongly recommended staff look at short-term solutions, such as temporary renovation of space in Levy, to alleviate
current space constraints at the Historic Court Complex. . He also emphasized the simplicity of providing space for his
operation during a “swing” period.”
Judge Higgins and CA Lunsford expressed surprise the BOS left the Feb 6th meeting with any thought of lack of urgency
to move the project forward.
CA Lunsford also expressed displeasure over the delay in seeing the preliminary draft report, which was dated late Aug
2012, and the general lack of communication by staff. Although not discussed, it should be noted the report was not
finalized until Jan 2013 in preparation for the Feb BOS meeting. Several of the chapters were not finalized until the Dec
timeframe.
Judge Higgins discussed the need for better communication from Staff on the project, especially when materials will be
going back to the BOS.
Debbie Shipp questioned the need for the full renovation and wondered if less costly options might be discovered
allowing for relief of current operational conditions but not the full $40Mil +project or at least consider phasing it over a
longer period.
Deputy Layman said from the Sherriff’s perspective one location is the preference, whether downtown or in the county
to maintain more efficient Sherriff operations in support of the courts operations.
Tom ended the discussion confirming that Staff will be working with the City to resolve the issues related to parking and
Levy disposition per the direction of the BOS but felt that we had accomplished the purpose of the meeting to confirm
the urgency of action with Key stakeholders. He emphasized the desire for collaborative teamwork moving forward
between the County and the court family.
Next steps will include continued discussions/negotiations with the City and providing an update to the BOS at an
upcoming meeting (Date TBD) confirming the urgency of action to move forward.
Respectfully submitted,
Trevor
Trevor Henry
Director, Office of Facilities Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road, Room 228
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
T (434) 872-4501 ext. 7942
F (434) 972-4091
C (434) 284-1112
thenry@albemarle.org
4
From:Diane Mullins [mailto:DMULLINS@albemarle.org]
Sent:Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:36 AM
To:Cheryl Higgins; Denise Lunsford; wgb8329@comcast.net; J. E. "Chip" Harding; Debra Shipp; T.D. Layman
Cc:pstewart@courts.state.va.us; Stacey Trader; Tom Foley; Bill Letteri; Larry Davis; Trevor Henry; Marsha Davis; Bower,
Meg
Subject:REMINDER: Court Study Update Mtg. - March 28th
Importance:High
Reminder: Court Study Update Meeting w/consultants:
Date: Thursday, March 28th
Time: 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Location: Circuit Court Jury Room
Agenda: Attached
Diane B. Mullins
County Executive'sOffice
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Phone: (434)296-5841, ext. 3402
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Economic Vitality Plan Quarterly Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on Major Activities of the Economic Vitality Action
Plan, Including Economic Indicators
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis and Allshouse; Ms. Catlin and Ms.
Stimart, S.
PRESENTER (S): Ms. Catlin and Mr. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 1, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board adopted an Economic Vitality Action Plan (“Plan”) on August 4, 2010 following extensive public discussion and
review. That plan established a schedule for staff to provide quarterly reports to the Board on staff’s progress and
activities related to the Plan. Staff will present the second quarterly report (January – March, 2013) of the Plan’s third year
of implementation at this meeting. This will be the last quarterly report prior to a final report upon completion of the Plan
this fall. The Board’s next discussion on the Economic Vitality Action Plan currently scheduled for July, 2013 will focus on
the FY 13 – 17 Strategic Plan goal regarding establishing an ongoing economic development function for the County.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3 – Promote Economic Vitality
DISCUSSION:
Attachment A provides a comprehensive three year work plan that outlines all the strategies and actions contained in
the Plan for each goal, along with the status of those activities and next steps required to complete the Plan by
September, 2013, as called for in the initial three year timetable. Many of the actions are ongoing in nature and will
not be “completed” per se but will be integrated into the established economic development program as components
of that program.
Objective 1 - Improve Business Climate and Image
Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter: Co-sponsored the Virginia Economic Development
Authority’s (VEDA) Spring Conference with the City of Charlottesville Economic Development Office, implemented
Phase 2 website improvements focused on target industries, participated in Central Virginia Partnership for Economic
Development (CVPED) rebranding.
Next Steps: Continued partnership/outreach.
Objective 2 - Simplify and Create Certainty - Continued regulatory reform
Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter: Implemented legislative review process improvements,
continued drop-in hours and ongoing training partnership with the Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of Commerce.
Next Steps: Continued assessment of development review improvement opportunities.
Objective 3 - Support Quality Job Opportunities
Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter: Achieved Albemarle First visitation goal, cosponsored
C’ville Start-up Weekend Edu, partnering on Virginia Bio educational summit, teaching session for Community
Investment Collaborative (CIC).
Next Steps: Continued focus on workforce development and target market outreach as appropriate.
Objective 4 - Expand Industrial Land Options
Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter: Adopted zoning text amendments to modernize uses and
increase flexibility in industrial and commercial districts, Planning Commission work session on complete
Comprehensive Plan update.
Next Steps: Comprehensive Plan update to come to the Board, voluntary rezoning effort to be initiated, market
expanded location possibilities to commercial brokers and appropriate businesses.
AGENDA TITLE: Economic Vitality Plan Quarterly Report
May 1, 2013
Page 2
Objective 5 - Promote Rural Economy/Tourism
Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter: Launched second year of Monticello Artisan Trail and
Presidents Passport tourism program, sponsored local food/agriculture portion of the Tom Tom Festival, supported
2013 Taste of Monticello Wine Trail Festival and Monticello Cup competition .
Next Steps: Continued focus on appropriate rural area economy initiatives.
Data reporting
As stated in the Plan, it is critical that the County regularly monitor and assess the economy and the local business
climate in order to proactively and effectively promote economic vitality. The most recent quarterly data is included in
Attachment B.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no immediate budget impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
No action is required by the Board related to this item.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Economic Vitality Action Plan Three Year Work Plan
Attachment B – Quarterly Data
Return to agenda
1
Economic Vitality Action Plan /Work Plan - August, 2010 – August, 2013
Goal/Objective/Strategy Status/Outcomes Notes /Next Steps
Goal 1 - IMPROVE THE COUNTY’S BUSINESS CLIMATE AND IMAGE
1. Expand Communications and
Outreach to the Business
Community
Develop and implement a plan to raise
awareness and promote County efforts
with the Virginia Economic Development
Partnership (VEDP)
Maintain active participation in Chamber of
Commerce and Thomas Jefferson
Partnership for Economic Development
(TJPED)
Continue outreach program using TJPED
prospect proposal system
Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) –
- Updates to the Albemarle County Community Profile on the VEDP
website.
- Several familiarization tours for VEDP staff including available sites in
Peter Jefferson Place, University of Virginia Research Park and the
Defense Intelligence Agency facility.
- Participate in ongoing conversations about new business prospects.
- Provided a briefing to 15 VEDP senior managers on the target
industry study, along with regional partners from the Central Virginia
Partnership for Economic Development (CVPED).
Virginia Economic Development Association (VEDA) –
- Worked with City economic development staff to co-host the spring
2013 VEDA conference.
- Regular attendance at biennial meetings of this group
- Serving on existing business retention and expansion task force
Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (VDACS)
- Participated in a state-wide agri-business forum to showcase
partnership in the Brew Ridge Trail and Monticello Artisan Trail.
- Maintain membership with the VA Agricultural Development Officers
(VADO).
Virginia Department of Business Assistance (DBA) –
- Met with the Director of the DBA, Peter Su, and his staff to discuss
the County’s action plan and possible partnerships.
Virginia Bio –
- Co-hosted VA Bio Sponsored Bio-tech Financing Workshop
- Partnering with the County school division, community stakeholders
and Virginia Bio on student mentoring and career exploration in the
biotech fields, including Life Sciences Education Summit this spring
Chamber of Commerce –
- Met with the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors on several
occasions to discuss the County’s action plan.
Positive, productive
partnerships have been
established, regular
communication and outreach to
state, regional and local
partners is envisioned as an
essential continuing component
of an ongoing economic
development program.
Exploring new partnerships with
GenEdge Alliance, VA Center for
Innovative Technology (CIT) and
DBA
2
- Active members of the Chamber agribusiness and economy and local
government roundtables
- Assisted with/sponsor of Chamber’s Minority Business Enterprises
Conference
Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development
- Active members of CVPED economic partners group, including
involvement in recently completed rebranding program
- Provided increased funding to CVPED
Free Enterprise Forum –
- Met with the Free Enterprise Forum members on several occasions
to discuss the County’s action plan.
Charlottesville Business Innovation Council (CBIC)
- Serving on the Board of Directors and actively supporting CBIC
programs.
- Assisted with organizing the CBIC Annual Awards Ceremony to
recognize entrepreneurial excellence;
- Sponsored the People’s Choice Navigator Award for significant
leadership in the local or regional entrepreneurial or high-tech
community.
2. Increase the Visibility of the
County’s Business
Development Staff
Make business development facilitator part
of the County Executive staff
Enhance presence of economic
development info on the web
County Executive’s Office of Community Partnerships expanded (renamed
Office of Community and Business Partnerships) to encompass Economic
Vitality Action Plan
Business Development Facilitator transitioned to Economic Development
Facilitator and relocated to Office of Community and Business
Partnerships
Launched updated Economic Development website– significantly
expanded economic development website presence and functionality
including new logo/visual identity for our efforts
Phase Two website improvements launched May 1 with specific focus on
target industries
Identified actions accomplished,
need to continue focus on
updates to the website as part
of ongoing economic
development program.
3
3. Improve Interaction Between
Community Development Staff
and the Business Community
Begin regular presentations to staff and the
public
Provide business community a quarterly
update of emerging and current
development issues
As part of pre-aps, assign staff member to
serve as single point of contact
Continue routine survey of applicants
Establish more standard notification
process for proposed ordinance changes
Launched the Plan with a listening tour that included face to face
meetings with 17 local, regional and state partners.
Quarterly roundtable sessions with staff and the business community
focusing on small business issues, UVA partnerships, school/business
partnerships and industrial sites and buildings among other topics
Established Single Point of Contact program
Business Appreciation Week Recognition – highlight local business and
other economic development partners for the Board of Supervisors
Better Business Challenge – co-sponsor of year-long competition among
106 area businesses to increase efficiency and sustainability in six key
areas: energy, water, transportation, waste, purchasing and leadership.
Participating in development of the Piedmont Council of the Arts (PCA)
Cultural Plan .
Worked with the Board of Supervisors and the Economic Development
Authority to establish new fee arrangement and funding priorities for the
EDA.
Identified actions accomplished,
need to continue focus on
regular interactions with the
business community as part of
ongoing economic development
program. Ongoing involvement
with the EDA regarding budget
development and oversight is a
new responsibility for the
economic development staff.
Goal 2 - SIMPLIFY/CREATE CERTAINTY IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PROCESS
1. Consider amendments to the
development ordinances to reduce
complexity of plan approval
Hold a work session with BOS on
changes to process for ARB review
Present recommended changes to the
BOS for ministerial applications
Present recommended changes to the
BOS for legislative applications
Improved and simplified application procedures for entrance corridor
development, with new Architectural Review Board (ARB) process
improvements
Adopted and implemented the legislative review process improvements.
Adopted and Implemented the site plan portion of the ministerial review
process improvements.
Simplified and improved the sign review and approval process.
Adopted a process for handling special exceptions.
Approved a Priority Review Process for qualified target industries,
successfully implemented the new process for target industry project that
met applicant time constraints.
Approved County Code amendments to Tourism Lodging Regulations to
permit additional lodging possibilities.
Adopted an ordinance amendment to reduce the fees and approval time
for home-based business applications.
Approved an amendment to the farm winery zoning regulations to use a
decibel noise standard; this allows vineyards to self-regulate event
activity and reduces staff enforcement.
All actions in this objective have
been accomplished, continued
focus on opportunities to
improve development review is
recommended.
4
2. Assist small enterprises in reaching
compliance with County
development standards
Provide staff assistance for small
businesses that have no experience
with development review
Produced a small business toolkit to assist small business owners who are
interested in starting, relocating, or expanding their businesses in
Albemarle County.
Established relationship with the Central Virginia Business Owners group.
Established regular drop-in opportunities for entrepreneurs to meet with
economic development staff to address their business growth questions.
Providing regular training in partnership with Chamber of Commerce on
doing business with Albemarle County
Initial steps in providing
assistance are underway,
continued focus on
opportunities to increase
assistance is recommended as
part of ongoing economic
development program.
Goal 3 - STRATEGICALLY WORK WITH PARTNERS ON CAREER LADDER
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
1. Promote and support small
business growth and development
Work with partners to identify and
address existing business needs and
implement regularly scheduled local
business panels
Expanded “Albemarle Business First” business retention program to help
the County identify issues, increase communication and improve its
overall business climate for existing companies
- Developed strategic outreach list of 500 companies focusing on target
industries and other strategic enterprises
- Established goal of 50 companies in 2010, 75 in 2011, 100 in 2012,
met all annual goals
Hosted SCORE workshops
Hosted SBDC workshops, County staff serves on the SBDC Advisory Board
C-Ville Central – Hosted program roll-out
Community Investment Collaborative (CIC) – hosted classes, regularly
teach class module on local permit requirements
Alternative Site Foreign-Trade Zone – worked with Culpeper County to
join their Foreign Trade Zone which will provide significant advantages to
Albemarle County companies that import goods from out of the country
that are subject to tariff.
Co-sponsored 2 recent Cville Start-upWeekend programs, a compressed
entrepreneur business program connecting entrepreneurs to venture
capitalists (per a recommendation from the Target Markets rpt).
Initial steps in supporting small
business growth and
development are underway,
continued focus on
opportunities to increase
assistance is recommended as
part of ongoing economic
development program.
2. Promote targeted business and
investment
Work with broad-based task force to
determine the region’s target
enterprise sectors
Create a plan for developing
workforce training programs tied to
Target Industry Study
- Worked with Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development
(CVPED) to identify and secure funding and manage the regional
Target Industry Study
- Target industries were identified and adopted by the Board for
Initial actions are completed,
recommend focus on workplace
training tied to target markets,
talent development and
recruitment, and targeted
5
target enterprises or key sectors
Review peer jurisdiction’s policies and
practices in attracting targeted
business and investment
Continue to support local job fairs,
showcase our local workforce talent
and corporate partners
Using existing tools, provide an online
feedback loop for policy makers
Albemarle County
- Working with regional partners and CVPED staff on implementation
strategies.
- Developing approaches to support identified target industry clusters,
including holding the second meeting of the newly established
Biotech Council.
CVPED branding program/increased funding
Board of Supervisors/School Board Business Leaders Roundtable to focus
on local workplaces and workforce issues and needs in the community
and identify opportunities to strengthen community/business
partnerships.
MicroAire purchased the former USPS building to expand its operations
with assistance from the Governors Opportunity Fund and the County’s
Economic Opportunity Fund.
Provide promotional support to local job fairs, on behalf of the
Workforce Center, new employers and the City’s Annual Job Fair
marketing outreach to desired
industries including start ups,
expansions and relocations
where appropriate as part of
ongoing economic development
program.
3. Connect opportunities with
residents
Work with partners to determine
demand occupations for
training/retraining dislocated workers,
low income adults and youth
populations
Market local opportunities to
qualified resident workforce
Align targeted enterprises and
demand occupations with student
education and participation
Working with community partners to plan a Virginia Biotech educational
symposium to focus on developing workforce and career opportunities in
the local life sciences industry.
Supporting entrepreneurial opportunities through involvement in
Community Investment Collaborative and Start Up Weekend Edu
(Education).
Serving on Community Advisory Board for the Monticello High School
Health and Sciences Academy.
Increased funding to Small Business Development Center (SBDC).
Helped organize and run the 2012 Tech Tour which involved 400
students (including 120 middle schoolers) from 21 area schools which was
the largest group ever involved in this activity – 63 local high tech
companies provided 81 separate tours.
Initial actions are completed,
recommend focus on workplace
training tied to target markets,
talent development and
recruitment, and targeted
marketing outreach to desired
industries including start ups,
expansions and relocations
where appropriate as part of
ongoing economic development
program.
Goal 4 - CONSISTENT WITH GOALS OF COMP PLAN, REMOVE OBSTACLES
AND EXPAND OPTIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND USERS
1. Consider amendments to the
County zoning ordinance
Bring proposed change to the BOS for
consideration
Approved Industrial districts’ performance standards.
Approved Zoning Text Amendment to modernize uses and provide
flexibility in the County’s industrial and commercial districts
All identified actions are
completed, recommend that
staff monitor progress and focus
on marketing new location
opportunities to appropriate
6
industrial clients, including
target industries, as part of
ongoing economic development
program.
2. Consider options for increasing
industrial inventory within areas
designated as development areas in
the Comp Plan
Initiate a county wide rezoning to LI
for RA and R-1 zoned properties in the
Dev areas that are designated as
industrial use
Continue pursuing strategies to step
the conversion of properties zoned LI
to non-core industrial uses
As part of future master plans and
Land Use Plan updates, consider
designating more land within existing
dev areas for industrial uses
As part of current effort to update
Comp Plan, consider a proposed
modification of interstate interchange
policy
Site Selection Fact Sheets – developing marketing fact sheets for available
industrial buildings and sites
Tentatively scheduled a Planning Commission public hearing on complete
Comprehensive Plan update, including additional LI land designations, on
March 5, 2013.
Considering comprehensive voluntary rezoning for LI land uses following
the adoption of the zoning text amendments and Comprehensive Plan
update
Industrial district ZTA modifications included additional protection from
by right office use conversion in defined instances
Majority of identified actions
completed or underway, major
outstanding item is the
Comprehensive Plan update
which impacts the remaining
actions. Continued focus on the
adequacy of LI inventory,
particularly for accommodating
target industries, is
recommended as part of
ongoing economic development
program.
Goal 5 - WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO PROMOTE LOCAL AGRICULTURAL
INDUSTRY AND TOURISM AS PART OF COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM FOR
RURAL ECONOMY
1. Assess current programs and
investments in agriculture, local
agricultural industry and tourism
Conduct a series of roundtables with
stakeholders and present findings to
the BOS
Held roundtables to review agritourism activities and emerging trends in
the state and to solicit feedback for the Comp Plan update process with
specific focus on agribusiness possibilities, insights are being addressed as
a part of the Comprehensive Plan update.
Initial roundtables completed,
regular communication should
be a component of the ongoing
economic development
program.
2. Evaluate and refine goals and
objectives for agriculture, local
agricultural industry and tourism
Include consideration of gathered info
in updates of Comp Plan, Strategic
Plan and agreement with the CACVB
Feedback from the roundtables has been factored in recommendations
included in the Comprehensive Plan update.
Feedback from the roundtables has informed the development of the
Identified actions are
completed, continued focus on
appropriate rural area economic
7
Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB)
Strategic Marketing Plan which focuses more effort and resources on
promoting the community’s tourism assets, including agritourism and
other attractions in the County.
opportunities is recommended
as part of ongoing economic
development program.
3. Identify target areas to more
aggressively promote in support of
agriculture, local agricultural
industry and tourism
Establish specific strategies and action
items for promoting and supporting
agriculture, local agricultural industry
and tourism
Monticello Artisans Trail – Launching second year of the program which
after successful first year resulted in approximately 100 active sites on the
Trail.
Presidents Passport Cooperative Marketing Program – assisted CACVB,
Monticello and Montpelier with a cooperative marketing program
designed to encourage tourism to the greater Charlottesville area,
program is beginning its second year this spring.
Winebloggers Conference – Albemarle County teamed with the CACVB,
Monticello and the Omni to host a press conference and to pursue other
publicity initiatives to promote the annual Winebloggers Conference in
July, 2011 in the community.
Monticello Wine Trail – led a strategic planning retreat with members of
the Monticello Wine Trail, worked with Monticello Wine Trail businesses
to plan the 2013 Wine Festival and Monticello Cup wine competition.
State Winery Signage Program – unveiling of a new Virginia wine region
sign program aimed at attracting more visitors to Virginia wineries; first
signs in the state designate our local Monticello American Viticultural
Area.
Agritourism: It’s More Than a Farm Tour- The County, the Small Business
Development Center, VA Tourism Corporation, and the Va Tech
Agricultural Extension co-hosted an information and training session for
local residents who are interested in exploring the possibilities of
developing a farming-tourism experience.
The Local Food Hub - The County co-sponsored the 2011 and 2012
Community Food Awards to support Local Food Hub operations.
USDA Specialty Crop Competitive Grant – Awarded a USDA Specialty
Crop Competitive Grant in the amount of $30,000 to support further
study into the production and expansion of hard cider in this region and
across the commonwealth, supported Virginia Cider Week with cideries in
Albemarle County leading efforts for marketing and event planning.
Locavore Expo at Tom Tom Festival – sponsored the Locavore Expo to
celebrate and educate the community about local food production and
put spotlight on area’s local farmers and food innovators.
Identified actions are
completed, continued focus on
appropriate rural area economic
opportunities is recommended
as part of ongoing economic
development program.
8
Led first annual Albemarle County local Agribusiness Marketing
Conference, in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce, which “sold
out” at 60 attendees.
Central Virginia livestock - In partnership with local Ext office, created
listserv and are releasing a survey to measure baseline conditions and
industry needs
Return to exec summary
Albemarle County Economic Vitality Indicators -- Quarterly Data
Compiled April 15, 2013
Same Qtr.Same Qtr.Same Qtr.Time Period Beginning Ending 2012-13
4 Yrs. Ago 3 Yrs. Ago 2 Yrs. Ago Comparison Quarter Quarter Change
Tax Revenue
*Sales Tax 3,050,739 2,834,355 3,224,167 Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 3,088,736 3,435,602 + 11.2%
Food & Beverage Tax 1,534,679 1,181,493 1,650,799 Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 1,437,895 1,550,380 + 7.8%
Transient Occupancy Tax 146,019 125,095 46,806 Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 129,808 142,861 + 10.1%
Jobs
*Unemployment Rate 3.4%5.2%5.0%Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 4.5%4.3%- 0.2 pp
*Total Number of Jobs 49,826 48,205 48,354 Q3 CY 11 & Q3 CY 12 49,121 48,808 - 0.6%
Workforce Center Clients Q1 CY 2012 & Q1 CY 13 4,718 5,066 +7.4%
General Business Activity
*Small Business Development Center Clients Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 26 18 - 8
Small Business Development Center Training Participants Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 21 25 + 4
Real Estate Market
Number of Single Family Homes for Sale Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 574 513 - 61
Monthly Average Number of Single Family Homes Sold Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 42.33 44.67 + 2.34
*Number of Months Supply of Unsold Single Family Homes Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 13.56 11.49 - 2.07 Mos.
FHFA Home Price Index for Charlottesville MSA Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 212.79 205.79 - 3.28%
Residential Foreclosure Rate per 10,000 Properties Q1 CY 12 & Q1 CY 13 4.81 3.20 - 33.47%
Albemarle County Economic Vitality Indicators -- Quarterly Data (Cont.)
Compiled April 15, 2013
Time Period Beginning Ending 2012-2013
Comparison Quarter Quarter Change
Development Activity
*$ Value of New Commercial Building Permits Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 16.080 M 11.576 M - 28.0%
*$ Value of New Residential Building Permits Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 24.236 M 27.373 M + 12.9%
Number of New Residential Building Permits Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 90 83 - 7
Annual Data
Beginning Ending 2011-2012
Year Year Change
*Total Number of Business Licenses CY 11 & CY 12 4,395 4,425 + 0.68%
Return to exec summary
Note: Total number of jobs includes full-time, part-time, and temporary positions.
Sources:
Workforce Center Clients figure comes from Heather Foor, Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic
Development. Small Business Development Center data is supplied by Nora Gillespie, Small Business Development
Center. All other figures are reported by Steven A. Allshouse, Manager of Economic Analysis and Forecasting,
Albemarle County Department of Finance.
Memorandum
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: April 23, 2013
SUBJECT: Boards and Commissions Vacancy and Reappointment List
______________________________________________________________________________
Attached, please find an updated listing of vacancies for boards and commissions through April 23, 2013.
Appointments that need to be made at this time are to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, Historic
Preservation Committee and Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council.
Listed below are the names and term expiration dates of individuals who wish to be appointed and/or
reappointed to the respective committees:
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee: One vacancy
Robert Drake
John Gobble
Historic Preservation Committee
Peter Wiley, term expires June 4, 2013
Steven Meeks, term expires June 4, 2013
Ross Stevens, term expires June 4, 2013
Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council
M. Waltine Eubanks, term expires May 31, 2013
Gary Grant, term expires May 31, 2013
View vacancy list
Return to agenda
MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
Acquisitions of Conservation Easements (ACE)Bill Edgerton 8/1/2012 8/1/2015 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Steve Murray 4/17/2012 4/17/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Mark Gorlinsky 5/5/2010 4/17/2014 Resigned
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council David van Roijen 4/17/2013 4/17/2017 Ineligible
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Christopher Dumler 11/21/2012 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Burton Webb 11/21/2012 Deceased
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Terry Rephann 7/8/2012 7/8/2014 No Advertised, 2 applications recv'd
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Following application received:
Robert Drake
John Gobble
Historic Preservation Committee Peter Wiley 6/4/2013 6/4/2016 Yes
Historic Preservation Committee Steven Meeks 6/4/2013 6/4/2016 Yes
Historic Preservation Committee Ross Stevens 6/4/2013 6/4/2016 Yes
Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council M. Waltine Eubanks 5/31/2013 5/31/2015 Yes
Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council Gary Grant 5/31/2013 5/31/2015 Yes
Natural Heritage Committee John Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee Diana Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No
Natural Heritage Committee Phil Stokes 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No
Natural Heritage Committee DeMellon Forest 9/30/2012 9/30/2016 No
Natural Heritage Committee Jim Byrom 9/30/2012 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee Christopher Dumler 9/30/2013 Resigned
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Jeffery Greer 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible, Joint City/County Advertised, No applications recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Vincent Day 12/31/2013 Resigned
Workforce Investment Board Sue Goldman 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 No Recommendations to come from TJPED
Revised 04/23/2013
Return to memo
Draft: March 12, 2013
ORDINANCE NO. 13-2(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE
II, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
2, Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2 -202, Compensation of Board of
Supervisors, as follows:
CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE II. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Sec. 2-202 Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors shall be fourteen thousand eight hundred thirty-four
($14,834.00) fifteen thousand one hundred thirty-one ($15,131.00) for each board member effective
July 1, 2012 2013. In addition to the regular salary, the vice -chairman shall receive a stipend of
thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired and the chairman shall receive an
annual stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00).
(6-13-84; 5-8-85; 5-14-86; 7-1-87; 7-6-88; 6-7-89; Ord. of 6-13-90; Ord. of 8-1-90; Ord. of 8-7-91;
Ord. of 7-1-92; Ord. No. 95-2(1), 6-14-95; Ord. No. 98-2(1), 6-17-98; Code 1988, § 2-2.1; Ord. 98-
A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. No. 99-2(1), 5-5-99; Ord. No. 00-2(1), 6-7-00; Ord. 01-2(2), 6-6-01; Ord. 02-2(2),
5-1-02; Ord. 03-2(1), 6-4-03; Ord. 04-2(1), 6-2-04; Ord. 05-2(1), 6-1-05, Ord. 06-2(1), 6-7-06; Ord.
07-2(1), 6-6-07; Ord. 08-2(2), 6-4-08; Ord. 11-2(1), 5-4-11; Ord. 12-2(1), 5-2-12)
State law reference--Compensation of board of supervisors, Va. Code § 15.2-1414.3.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2013.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
_____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Request to grant sanitary sewer and water easements
across portions of County-owned property – Old Trail
Park (TMP 55E-01--H)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider granting water and sewer
easements to the Albemarle County Service Authority
across portions of Old Trail Park (TMP 55E-01--H) to
provide sanitary sewer and water service to nearby
properties in the Old Trail Subdivision
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Herrick, and Crickenberger
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 1, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has requested that the County grant easements for the installation of
sanitary sewer and water lines across portions of County-owned property designated as Parcel ID 055E0-01-00-
000H0, located in the Old Trail Subdivision.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
DISCUSSION:
There are two proposed Deeds of Easement. This property on which the easements are requested was conveyed to
the County for use as a public park. The specific location of the proposed easements is set forth in the attached Plats
(Attachments B1 and B2). The water and sewer lines will be buried within the easements and there will be no above
ground facilities. The easements will not interfere with the use of the property as a public park. Piedmont Senior
Living Real Estate, LLC, a neighboring property owner, is also a party to the first proposed Deed (Attachment A1)
because a proposed easement also crosses its property. March Mountain Properties I, LLC, a neighboring property
owner, is also a party to the second proposed Deed (Attachment A2) because a proposed easement also crosses its
property.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of this interest in County-
owned real property.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that, after receiving public comment, the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C)
approving the ACSA easements and authorizing the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County
Attorney, the Deeds of Easement (Attachment A) on behalf of the County.
ATTACHMENTS
A1 – Deed of Easement between Piedmont Senior Living Real Estate, LLC and the County and ACSA
A2 – Deed of Easement between March Mountain Properties I, LLC and the County and ACSA
B1 – Plat for A1 Deed
B2 – Plat for A2 Deed
C – Resolution
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A1
ATTACHMENT A1
ATTACHMENT A1
ATTACHMENT A1
ATTACHMENT A1
ATTACHMENT A1
ATTACHMENT A1
ATTACHMENT A2
{#12772-3} 1
Albemarle County
TMP# 055E0-01-00-000G0 TMP# 055E0-01-00-000H0
TMP# 055E0-01-00-000A1 TMP# 055E0-01-11-01600
PREPARED BY:
Woods Rogers PLC
This DEED OF EASEMENT, made this 16th day of April 2013, by and between
MARCH MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES I, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, first
Grantor (“MMPI”); MARCH MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability
company, second Grantor (“MMP”); COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, third Grantor (the “County” and collectively with MMPI and
MMP, the “Grantors”); and ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY, Grantee,
whose address is 168 Spotnap Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (the “Authority”).
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested and the Grantors have agreed to grant the
Authority various water and sanitary sewer line easements located in and around Block 11 of Old
Trail Subdivision, situated in Albemarle County, Virginia, which easements are shown on the
following three (3) plats (collectively, the “Plats”):
Plat dated October 19, 2012, prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc.
entitled “Boundary Line Adjustment and Revised Subdivision Plat Old Trail Block
11 White Hall Magisterial District Albemarle County, Virginia” which plat is of
record in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in
Deed Book 4257, pages 377-388;
Plat dated April 5, 2013, prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. entitled
“20’ Waterline Easement Old Trail Village Dedicated to the Albemarle County
Service Authority White Hall Magisterial District Albemarle County, Virginia,”
which plat is attached hereto and recorded herewith; and
Plat dated April 15, 2013, prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., entitled
“Easement Plat Showing Water Meter Easement Located on TMP 55E-1-11-16
Block 11 - Old Trail Village Dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority
White Hall Magisterial District Albemarle County, Virginia,” which plat is attached
hereto and recorded herewith.
ATTACHMENT A2
{#12772-3} 2
WHEREAS, as shown on the Plats, the proposed easements cross a portion of the
property conveyed to MMPI by deed recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the
County of Albemarle (the “Clerk’s Office”) in Deed Book 3824, page 335 (the “MMPI
Property”); and MMPI is fee simple owner of the said property as of the date hereof;
WHEREAS, as shown on the Plats, the proposed easements cross a portion of the
property conveyed to MMP by deed recorded in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 2233, page 389
(the “MMP Property”); and MMP is fee simple owner of the said property as of the date hereof;
and
WHEREAS, as shown on the Plats, the proposed easements cross a portion of the
property conveyed to the County by deed recorded in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 3955,
page 1 (the “Public Park”); and the County is the fee simple owner of the said property as of the
date hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00)
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the first
and second Grantors do hereby GRANT and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY OF
TITLE and the third Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY
OF TITLE unto the Albemarle County Service Authority perpetual rights of way and easements
to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace and extend water and sanitary sewer lines
consisting of pipes and appurtenances thereto, over, under and across the real property of the
Grantors located in the White Hall Magisterial District of Albemarle County, Virginia in the Old
Trail Subdivision, the location and width of the easements hereby granted and the boundary of
the properties being more particularly described on the Plats.
ATTACHMENT A2
{#12772-3} 3
The easements hereby granted are shown on the Plats as “20’ Waterline Easement,” “10’
Sanitary Lateral Easement,” “Variable Width Waterline and Sanitary Sewer Easement,” “20’
Sanitary Sewer Easement,” “New Portion of 20’ Waterline Esmt. To Include Fire Hydrant,” and
“New Water Meter Easement.” Reference is made to the aforesaid Plats for the exact location
and dimension of the permanent easements hereby granted and the property over which the same
crosses.
The Grantors, their successors or assigns, agree that new trees, shrubs, fences, buildings,
overhangs or other improvements or obstructions, except as provided for below, shall not be
placed within the easements conveyed herein. The County shall have the right to construct trails
and related improvements (“Park Improvements”) within the portions of the easements hereby
granted that cross the Public Park. The Grantors, their successors or assigns, shall have the right
to construct other utility lines within the easements hereby granted, provided no such lines shall
be within five (5) feet horizontally of the water and sewer lines installed hereunder.
As a part of these easements, the Authority shall have the right to enter upon the above
described properties within the easements for the purpose of installing, constructing,
maintaining, repairing, replacing and extending water and sewer lines and appurtenances thereto
within such easements, and the right of ingress and egress thereto as reasonably necessary to
construct, install, maintain, repair, replace and extend such water and sewer lines. If the
Authority is unable to reasonably exercise the right of ingress and egress over the rights -of-way,
the Authority shall have the right of ingress and egress over the property of the owner adjacent to
the right-of-way.
Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within such easements, the Authority agrees to
backfill such excavation in a proper and workmanlike manner so as to restore surface conditions
ATTACHMENT A2
{#12772-3} 4
as nearly as practical to the same condition as prior to excavation, including restoration of such
paved surfaces as may be damaged or disturbed as part of such excavation.
The easements provided for herein shall include the right of the Authority to cut any trees,
brush and shrubbery, remove obstructions, including Park Improvements, and take other similar
action reasonably necessary to provide economical and safe water and sewer line installation,
operation and maintenance. Following the removal of any Park Improvements, the County may
restore such Park Improvements at its expense, and the Authority shall have no responsibility to
the Grantors, their successors or assigns, to replace or reimburse the cost of said trees, brush,
shrubbery or obstructions, including Park Improvements, if cut or removed or otherwise
damaged. Any and all trees, brush, shrubbery or obstructions cut or removed by the Authority
shall be disposed of at the Authority’s expense at a location not within the Public Park, the MMP
Property or the MMPI Property, unless the applicable property owner consents in writing to such
disposal on its property.
The facilities constructed within the permanent easements shall be the property of the
Authority which shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve and make such
changes, alterations and connections to or extensions of its facilities within the boundaries of the
permanent easements as are consistent with the purposes expressed herein.
SIGNATURE PAGES IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW
ATTACHMENT A2
{#12772-3} 5
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
MARCH MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES I, LLC,
a Virginia limited liability company
By: ________________________________
Name: ________________________________
Title: Manager
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF _____________________to-wit,
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___day of ________ 2013,
by _____________________________ as Manager of March Mountain Properties I, LLC, a
Virginia limited liability company.
_______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:______________________
Commission No.:_____________________________
ATTACHMENT A2
{#12772-3} 6
MARCH MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES, L.L.C.,
a Virginia limited liability company
By: ________________________________
Name: ________________________________
Title: Manager
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF _____________________to-wit,
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___day of ________ 2013,
by _____________________________ as Manager of March Mountain Properties, L.L.C., a
Virginia limited liability company.
_______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:______________________
Commission No.:_____________________________
ATTACHMENT A2
{#12772-3} 7
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: _________________________________
Name: _________________________________
Title: County Executive
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
County Attorney
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF _____________________to-wit,
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___day of ____________
2013, by _________________________ on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
_______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:______________________
Commission No.:_____________________________
ATTACHMENT A2
{#12772-3} 8
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
By: ________________________________
Gary O’Connell, Executive Director
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF _____________________to-wit,
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___day of _____________
2013, by Gary O’Connell, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority.
_______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:______________________
Commission No.:_____________________________
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT B1
ATTACHMENT B1
ATTACHMENT B2
ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION APPROVING DEED OF EASEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE AND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
FOR SERVICE TO OLD TRAIL SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle owns certain property located in the Old
Trail Subdivision (Parcel 055E0-01-00-000H0); and
WHEREAS, easements across this County-owned property are necessary for the
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) to provide sanitary sewer and water service
to the Old Trail Subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby approves the granting of these certain easements to the ACSA, and
authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney, two
Deeds of Easement with ACSA for sanitary sewer and waterline easements across Parcel
055E0-01-00-000H0.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct
copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a
vote of _______ to _______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on
______________________.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 2013 Budget
Amendment in the amount of $12,147,434.00 and approval
of Budget Amendment and Appropriations #2013086,
#2013087, #2013088, #2013089 and #2013090 for local
government and school division programs and projects.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri and Davis, and Ms. Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): Lori Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 1, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first
publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all
County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The cumulative total of the FY 2013 appropriations from the time period of April 3, 2012 through May 1, 2013 and itemized
below is $12,147,434.00. Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently
adopted budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed increase of this FY 2013 Budget Amendment totals $12,147,434.00. The estimated expenses and revenues
included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 70,000.00
Special Revenue Funds $ 130,000.00
Capital Improvements Funds $ 11,874,434.00
ECC $ 73,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 12,147,434.00
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Loan Proceeds $ 11,320,373.00
Proffer Revenue $ 550,000.00
General Fund Balance $ 70,000.00
Other Fund Balances $ 207,061.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 12,147,434.00
The budget amendment is comprised of seven (7) separate appropriations as follows, two of which has already been
approved by the Board as indicated below:
Approved April 3, 2013:
One (1) appropriation (#2013083) totaling $130,000.00 to the EDA for the purpose of funding a short-term loan to
the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center;
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
May 1, 2013
Page 2
Approved April 10, 2013:
One (1) appropriation (#2013085) totaling $73,000.00 for Emergency Communication Center projects.
The five (5) appropriations requested for Board approval on May 1, 2013 are as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2013086) totaling $50,000.00 for the Ivy Fire Station Maintenance Account as required by
the terms of the sublease;
One (1) appropriation (#2013087) totaling $4,061.00 to re-appropriate funding for a General Government CIP
project;
One (1) appropriation (#2013088) totaling $11,820,373.00 for the purchase of the Rio Road West Property and the
required building renovations for a new library to replace the current Northside Library and to provide County
storage space;
One (1) appropriation (#2013089) totaling $20,000.00 for salary reclassifications and adjustments; and
One (1) appropriation (#2013090) totaling $50,000.00 for the Cory Farm Greenway Connector project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2013 Budget Amendment in the amount of $12,127,434.00
and approval of appropriations #2013086, #2013087, #2013088, #2013089 and #2013090 to provide funds for various local
government projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2013086 $50,000.00
Source: General Fund fund balance $ 50,000.00
This request is to appropriate $50,000.00 of General Fund fund balance for the Ivy Fire Station Maintenance
Account to pay for the County’s share of the annual repairs and maintenance of the Ivy Fire Station as required by
the terms of the sublease approved by the Board on April 4, 2012. According to the terms of the lease, the County
must fund a maintenance account with a balance of $50,000.00 within 30 days of the Com mencement Date and on
each anniversary of the Commencement Date. The Commencement Date is anticipated to be May 1, 2013 upon
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Appropriation #2013087 $4,061.00
Source: General Gov’t CIP Fund Balance $ 4,061.00
This request is to appropriate $4,061.00 from the General Government CIP Fund fund balance to support the
completion of the Preddy Creek Park project. This portion of funding was appropriated in FY 12 and was expected
to support services undertaken in late FY 12. However, the expense was recorded in FY 13; so the funding needs
to be re-appropriated to FY 13 to cover the FY 13 expense. The services were for removing a collapsed house on
park land at Preddy Creek.
Appropriation #2013088 $11,820,373.00
Source: Loan Proceeds $11,320,373.00
Proffer Revenue $ 500,000.00
As described in the Rio Road West Property Acquisition Executive Summary, also on the Board’s May 1 , 2013
agenda, this request is to appropriate $11,208,998 in loan proceeds an d $500,000.00 in Stonefield Proffers for a
total appropriation of $11,708,998 to support the purchase of the property and the required building renovations.
The intended use for the property would be a new, permanent location for the Northside library and County
warehouse/storage space. The new facility would provide approximately 30,00 0 to 37,000 square feet of library
space and 20,000 square feet of warehouse space. The immediate funding of the Phllips Buiding Project would
allow the project to start design development in FY13/14 and to be completed in FY 14/15.
This appropriation request is contingent upon the Board’s approval of the Rio Road West Property acquisition.
Appropriation #2013089 $20,000.00
Source: General Fund fund balance $ 20,000.00
This request is to appropriate $37,655.00 in funding from the reclassification pool to various departments for
individual reclassifications that occurred throughout FY 13. This portion of the appropriation is a re-allocation of
funds and has no impact on the total budget.
In addition, the Office of Housing will overexpend its salary budget in FY 13/14 as the result of a payout of unused
annual leave when an employee left the County. This request is for $20,000.00 to cover those costs.
Appropriation #2013090 $50,000.00
Source: Proffer Revenue $ 50,000.00
This request is to appropriate $50,000.00 in various proffer revenue s (see below) to support the Cory Farm
Greenway Connector project. This project includes the construction of a bike/pedestrian trail that will connect
various Crozet neighborhoods to Crozet Park, downtown Crozet and Route 250 retail and businesses. The scope
includes an easement acquisition, trail and bridge design/development, pedestrian bridge, benches, Kiosk and
signage. The project will begin upon approval of this appropriation request and is anticipated to be complete by the
fall of 2013. The proffers supporting this project are summarized below.
Proffer Interest Total
Liberty Hall $6,400.00 $32.22 $6,432.22
Westhall (1.2) $13,000.00 $29.61 $13,029.61
Wickham Pond $30,538.17 $0.00 $30,538.17
Total $49,938.17 $61.83 $50,000.00
Return to exec summary
Board‐to‐Board
May, 2013
A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
School Board Considers Budget - The School Board will consider recommended reductions of $589,000 in the division’s
2013-14 funding request at their April 25th meeting. Staff recommendations are expected to include eliminating six FTEs
that were proposed for next year, savings from producing an on line curriculum in-house and reductions in projected
energy spending. The elimination of the six FTEs would not impact class size. The School Board is expected to vote to
approve a balanced budget at this meeting.
Strategic Plan Update- On Monday evening, April 22, the school division hosted a public meeting to present the findings
of its community outreach meetings and on line surveys about future priorities and goals for the School Board’s
consideration of strategic plan revisions this summer. Nearly 2,000 responses were provided by community residents and
another 5,600 responses were received from students. The strongest support was for two current strategic goals, preparing
students for success in a global community and economy and developing a diverse cadre of high quality teachers, staff
and administrators. Problem-solving, communication and critical thinking skills ranked high on the list of respondents.
The findings and recommendations from the community outreach process will be reported to the School Board, which
will consider revisions to the strategic plan during its retreat in June.
Jouett Middle School Accomplishes AVID Demonstration School Application – Jack Jouett Middle School recently was
named an AVID Demonstration School by the national AVID program office. There are nearly 5,000 AVID program
sites worldwide, and less than three percent of those locations earn Demonstration or model program status. Next month,
a delegation from Lynchburg City will visit Jouett to learn about the program and later in the month, the school will host a
visiting delegation of educators from Australia.
M-Cubed Program to Close Achievement Gap Wins National Recognition for Excellence – The M-cubed program –
“Math, Men, Mission” earned the National School Boards Association’s top award for performance excellence among all
school divisions in the country with student enrollment between 5,000 and 20,000. The program, now in its fourth year,
brings together educators, community mentors, and the private sector on behalf of African-American middle school
males, who have had a history of being underrepresented in math honors classes. The program includes a summer math
academy, parent workshops, and year-round mentors to enhance academic and life skills. M-cubed is a partnership of The
100 Black Men of Central Virginia, Albemarle County Public Schools, State Farm Insurance, and UVa. More
information can be found at: http://schoolboardnews.nsba.org/2013/04/asbj-announces-2013-magna-award-winners/
and on the school division’s home page.
Albemarle High School Alumni Association – The Albemarle High School Alumni Association inducted seven new
members into its Alumni Hall of Fame on April 26. Guest speaker for the event was 1960 Albemarle HS grad and former
Chief Operating Officer for the University of Virginia, Leonard Sandridge, who is a hall of fame member. The seven new
inductees are Paul Cale, Jr.; Marilyn Jones Fantino; Scott Goodman; Wilmer Leatherman; Stanley Maupin; William
Raines; and Sherman Shifflett.
Destination ImagiNation’s (DI) Global Finals – Five teams from Albemarle County Public School qualified to compete
in Destination ImagiNation’s (DI) Global Finals at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville from May 22-25.
Three teams placed first in the statewide tournament held at Western Albemarle High School, including an Albemarle
High School team that placed fifth in the Global Finals a year ago. Also first was a joint team from Burley and Walton
middle schools and a team from Murray Elementary School. A separate Murray team and one from Woodbrook
Elementary School finished second in their categories, also earning the right to compete in Globals. In its 14th year, DI
competitions have involved more than one million participants from around the globe. The organization defines its
mission as “developing opportunities that inspire the global community of learners, to utilize divers approaches in
applying 21st century skills and creativity. Information on the ACPS teams can be found at:
http://www2.k12albemarle.org/acps/division/communications/newsroom/Pages/Five%20ACPS%20Teams%20Advance%
20to%20Destination%20ImagiNation%E2%80%99s%20Global%20Finals.aspx
Virginia Mathematics League – Albemarle High School Students outperformed 77 high school teams from across
Virginia during this year’s competition. The competition challenges the mathematical reasoning and analysis skills of
students through a series of monthly exams that began in September. Test results were accumulated over a six-month
period to yield a final team score. Ryan Lake, an Albemarle High School senior, was one of six students statewide who
received a perfect score on the monthly tests (he did that three times), and he finished second overall. Five other
Albemarle students, including Wesley Daugherty, Jeannie Kim, Sims Gautam, Quinn Legallo-Malone and Laura Ungar,
placed among the top 40 students in Virginia.
Albemarle County Students Win State Science and Engineering Awards - Albemarle County Public Schools students
won two first places awards, a second place, and a third place in the 29th annual Virginia State Science & Engineering
Fair, held on April 6 at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia. Nearly 300 students from across the state
offered 240 projects in 17 separate categories and in several special award categories.
Sydney Giacalone, an Albemarle High School senior, placed first in the Plant Sciences category; Xiaoran (Seamore) Zhu,
a sophomore at Western Albemarle High School, finished first in the Material and Bioengineering; Sims Gautam, an
Albemarle High School senior, earned second place in Mathematical Sciences and two Albemarle High School juniors,
Molly Thomson and Elizabeth Rintels, were third place finishers in a special category sponsored by the Virginia Chapter
of the American Water Works Association. Two students, Ms. Giacalone and Mr. Gautam, will be competing in the Intel
International Science & Engineering Fair in Phoenix, Arizona from May 12-17, by virtue of having won Best in Show
honors at the Piedmont Regional Fair. More than 1,500 students from 70 different countries annually participate in the
international competition. For more information on the specific projects by these students, visit:
http://www2.k12albemarle.org/acps/division/communications/newsroom/Pages/Five%20Albemarle%20County%20Stude
nts%20Win%20Awards%20at%20State%20Science%20and%20Engineering%20Fair.aspx
Jouett Wind Energy Project Awarded - A team of students from Jack Jouett Middle School placed first in the Virginia
KidWind Challenge 2013, a statewide competition among middle and high school students to design and demonstrate an
efficient wind turbine. Students were asked to incorporate engineering and scientific principles in constructing a small-
scale wind turbine and were evaluated according to the amount of electricity they were able to generate. Jouett also is one
of two Albemarle County public schools collaborating with the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education and its
Engineering School to create the first lab school in the nation. Together with Charlottesville City’s Buford Middle School,
Charlottesville High School, and Albemarle High School, Jouett will offer classes in advanced manufacturing
technologies. The state is providing a $300,000 planning grant for the program, which will expand training opportunities
for students in science and engineering to prepare them better for careers in technology-rich professions.
Spring Musical Opportunities –
Albemarle High School presents
“Hello Dolly”
May 2, 2013, 8pm
May 3, 8pm, 6pm Dinner Theater available
May 5, 3pm
Tickets available: http://www.ahspresents.com
Monticello Players Present
“In the Heights”
May 17, 8pm
May 18, 8pm
May 19, 4pm
Tickets available: https://tix7.seatyourself.biz/webstore/webstore.html?domain=monticellodrama&event
Or on the Monticello High School website: http://www2.k12albemarle.org/school/mohs/Pages/default.aspx
Donations to Albemarle County Public Schools – Albemarle County Public Schools received the following donations:
Murray High School received a donation in the amount of $125.00 from Don Soechting, to be used to help with
expenses for Student Snack/Meals.
Hollymead Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 from ACAC Fitness & Wellness
Centers. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to purchase recreation supplies at Hollymead
Elementary School.
Brownsville Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $8,918.81 from the Brownsville BEE
Program. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to reimburse wage codes for BEE program at
Brownsville Elementary School.
Crozet Elementary School received two donations totaling $1,720.44 from the Crozet PTO. The donor has
requested that $1,550.16 be used to reimburse school for Eagle Time wages and $170.88 be used to reimburse for
office supplies and paper purchase at Crozet Elementary School.
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $10,355.93 from the Meriwether
Lewis PTO. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to reimburse school for the Ezone Yearbook
wages paid by Meriwether Lewis Elementary School.
Yancey Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $350.00 from Yancey Elementary School
Activity Funds. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to reimburse for a public speaker at
Yancey Elementary School.
Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $461.82 from the Stone Robinson PTO.
The donor has requested that this contribution be used to reimburse the school budget for paying teachers in the
Enrichment Program during the spring of 2012. These funds are going to fund the Floor Hockey and Film Makers
clubs at Stone Robinson Elementary School.
Red Hill Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $967.99 from Saint Thomas Aquinas Church.
The donor has requested that this contribution be used to purchase books for Red Hill Elementary School students
to keep for summer reading.
Stony Point Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $136.10 from the Stony Point PTO. The
donor has requested that this contribution be used to reimburse Stony Point Elementary School for snacks
purchased for students taking SOLs.
Brownsville Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $3,000.00 from the Robert E. McConnell
Foundation. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to purchase snacks at Brownsville Elementary
School.
Greer Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $112.50 from a bake sale fundraiser. The donors
requested that this contribution be used for any instructional needs at Greer Elementary School.
Hollymead Elementary School received two donations totaling $9,589.98 from the Hollymead PTO. $4,602.00 is
a donation as additional instructional support at Hollymead Elementary School; and $4,987.98 is a donation to
purchase 9 ELMO document cameras at Hollymead Elementary School.
School Board website: www.k12albemarle.org
MEMORANDUM
To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
From: Gary O’Connell, Executive Director
Date: April 23, 2013
Re: Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Quarterly Briefing
cc: ACSA Board of Directors
Mr. Tom Foley, County Executive
Thank you once again for the opportunity to continue to update the Board
of Supervisors as part of our regular quarterly briefings. We are scheduled to
meet with the Board at your May 1st meeting.
Below are some highlights of current items for the ACSA:
1. FY 2014 Budget & Water & Sewer Rates – The budget and rates for
the next year were proposed to the ACSA Board on March 21 st. Our
rates are effective with the start of the next fiscal year, beginning on
July 1st. The ACSA Board will take up adoption of the rates in June,
following a Public Hearing. We have proposed a slight decrease in the
monthly rates for our average single-family residential customer. All
other monthly rates will remain the same for non-single family custom-
ers. The operating budget is proposed at $25.85 million, of which
about two-thirds is for the purchase of water and wastewater treatment
from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. We have also proposed
nearly $6 million in capital projects for replacem ent and rehabilitation of
our utility system. The development related new connections fees are
proposed to increase 4%. The “connection fees” are the financial
method for new development to pay the ACSA for growth related water
and wastewater capital costs, which relates to having the water and
wastewater capacity (lines and facilities) to serve new development in
the future.
2. FY 2014 Capital Projects – Much of our work involves maintenance of
our water distribution lines, wastewater collection system, and the as-
sociated pump stations and tanks that serve those systems. Our Cap i-
tal Improvement Program for FY 2014 is proposed at nearly $6 million;
$5 million for water related projects and $1 million for wastewater r e-
lated ones. I will highlight below those projects that are underway, and
several new projects that are proposed with the next budget year b e-
ginning in July:
Western Ridge-Foxchase – New interconnection to create
a loop to help improve water quality. In the midst of complet-
ing easement and design work.
Key West Water Main Replacement – Project will replace
undersized and deteriorating water mains, an d improve fire
flow in the area. Design work is underway, with construction
planned for early 2014.
St. George/Buck Road Water Main Replacement – Older
water lines, some believed to be 70 years old, are in need of
replacement on these two Crozet streets. This project has
been bid, below budget, and work is about to start.
Ashcroft Pump Station & Water Line Replacement –
About 20% of the new 8-inch water line has been installed.
Final design work underway for summer construction for the
pump station work.
Crozet Water Main Replacement – Recent breaks mean
this has gotten high priority for replacement, with undersized
and aging water lines. Areas include Tabor Street, High
Street, Hilltop Street and St. George Ave. (east of Crozet
Ave.).
Glenmore Water Tank – Following a successful neighbor-
hood meeting in February, we are completing some of the
preliminary legal work to begin to design the project. F und-
ing for construction not available until July 2015.
Ivy Road-Flordon Water Connection – An interconnect to
improve water quality and fire flows, which serves West
Leigh.
Ednam Water Pump Station – Pump replacement as part
of the Ivy Road-Flordon connection project.
Woodbrook Sewer System Rehabilitation – As part of our
continuing efforts to reduce infiltration and inflow (I&I) in our
sewer system, this project includes manhole rehabilitation,
pipe relining and rehabilitation, and some pipe replacement.
Work is underway on this project. We have a study about to
begin on sewer system rehabilitation in the Ednam area.
Hollymead Water Line Replacement – This project is part
of our ongoing effort to replace undersized and deteriorating
water lines in this subdivision; some upwards of 40 years
old. The water line replacement by ACSA crews has been
completed on Robin Lane, with Derby Lane and then Maiden
Lane remaining.
Hardware Street Water Extension – Construction is un-
derway on this new water main in Scottsville, with about 25%
of the work completed. This new line provides a direct co n-
nection from the tank to the downtown.
Buckingham Circle Water Line Replacement – This water
line replacement has been completed.
Oak Hill Sewer – Work is nearly complete on this new sew-
er line to serve a portion of Oak Hill. This project was in con-
junction with Albemarle County using CDBG funding.
3. ACSA Strategic Plan – We are nearing completion of our 5-year Stra-
tegic Plan for the future. We have worked particularly hard to involve
the community, our customers, our employees, and the ACSA Board in
this 5-year plan. These are larger strategic issues that we will need to
address. A final plan will be completed for Board adoption in June.
Return to agenda
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-9016
434.977.2970 • 434.293.8858 Fax
www.rivanna.org
MEMORANDUM
TO: THE HONORABLE ALBEMARLE COUNTY SUPERVISORS
THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: THOMAS L. FREDERICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
SUBJECT: QUARTERLY UPDATE
DATE: MAY 1, 2013
I am scheduled to provide a quarterly briefing to the Board of Supervisors and the City Council in
May 2013. I plan to cover the following topics, but would be happy to address any other issues
brought forward by the elected officials:
1. Water Treatment Plant Granular Activated Carbon Improvements: All of the RWSA
water treatment plants are being evaluated for an advanced upgrade in treatment to add
granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration as a new process in addition to the
conventional treatment facilities that have been in service for many years. GAC
removes much of the natural trace organic matter in the source water, which limits the
potential for reactions in the water distribution system between the trace matter and the
free chlorine used for disinfection of the water. Those reactions, called disinfection
byproducts, are regulated by the EPA, and those regulations are becoming more
stringent under Stage 2 requirements which are effective in 2014. The GAC facilities
will provide the assurance that our water plant operators will have the tools to meet
Stage 2 requirements on a consistent basis.
Final design is nearly completed for the Crozet and Scottsville Water Treatment Plants,
and construction bidding will occur later this year. Our consultant is in the preliminary
engineering and pilot plant stage for the three Urban water plants. An updated progress
meeting to discuss the continuing performance of the pilot plant units will occur between
staff and the consultant in May. As soon as sufficient pilot plant and laboratory data is
available, a “hybrid” analysis will commence. For the Urban plants, “hybrid” is defined
to encompass various options for less than 100% GAC treatment of water. GAC
treatment is costly because of the high expense of exchanging the carbon media for
regeneration as its adsorption capability diminishes with use. Hybrid options may
include partial GAC treatment and blending, seasonal GAC operation, or “triggered” use
based upon indicators of source water quality. Parameters for when and how much GAC
2
I:\BOS\BOSLocal\agenda\2013 Folders\0501\21.0_RWSAQuarterlyReport.doc
treatment to provide may also be different at each treatment plant. In general, hybrid
GAC will leave more trace organic material in the water, but benefits from a lower cost
compared to 100% GAC; all GAC and hybrid options will cost more than what was
estimated for chloramines. The Board of Directors will seek guidance from the public
and elected officials regarding the selection of the objectives of GAC or hybrid GAC
treatment from the following options: (1) minimum approach – for Stage 2 compliance
only; (2) moderate approach – trace regulated disinfection byproducts (trihalomethanes
and haloacetic acids) should not be greater than would have been achieved had
chloramines been used; or (3) maximum approach – 100% GAC year round for superior
water quality. Public input will be sought before the decision is made.
2. Operating Budgets: Operating Budgets for both the RWSA and RSWA have been
introduced for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2013. Public hearings are scheduled for
Tuesday, May 28, 2013 and the Boards of Directors are expected to deliberate each
budget for adoption after each respective hearing. For RWSA, wholesale charges to the
City and ACSA are proposed to decline in FY 2014, made possible by significant
savings in bond refundings that occurred last fall. Our five year projection for the debt
service component of rates is to remain near or below the FY 2013 rate for Urban Water,
but with some increase in Urban Wastewater due to an upcoming significant size bond
issuance to finance the new Rivanna Pump Station and tunnel. How this project affects
the ACSA or City individually will depend upon the outcome of Cost Share Agreement
negotiations.
The RSWA budget continued a pattern over the past few years of austerity, providing
only the programs directed by the City or County through Local Government Support
Agreements. Vegetative wastes and clean fill received at the Ivy MUC vary with
economic and weather conditions, but volume received is often close to the level needed
to be self-supported. Other Ivy MUC services, including municipal solid waste and
appliances, have been previously judged by the County as vital to maintain for those
citizens not effectively served by private haulers, but the declining tonnages are well
below what is necessary to build economies-of-scale for self-support at reasonable
tipping fees, thereby public support has been necessary to maintain the service. A
reduction of four permanent positions for the Ivy MUC is proposed July 1, along with
reduced hours from the present six days-per-week to only five days-per-week (closing
every Sunday and Monday). Except for the McIntire Recycling Center and Paper Sort,
special HHW and amnesty day collections, and landfill remediation, the City is
providing its own solid waste programs separate from RSWA. The County is now
considering its own solid waste service options separate from RSWA as well, with
possible implementation as soon as January 1.
3. Cost Share Agreements: We understand the City and ACSA have met, and are
continuing to work on a comprehensive agreement as to how the two entities will share
the costs of RWSA’s Capital Improvement Program. RWSA is providing technical
support to either party when requested, but is not participating in the negotiations. It is
important to complete this Agreement in 2013, as the $40 million Rivanna Pump Station
project moves to construction in 2014.
Return to agenda
Contradictory Consequences
A Free Enterprise Forum White Paper exploring how cash proffers negatively impact economic
advancement, create false hope and hinder implementation of community supported
comprehensive plans.
Prepared by:
Neil Williamson
President
Free Enterprise Forum
434.220.0781
www.freeenterpriseforum.org
Preface – Contradictory Consequences: A Free Enterprise Forum White
Paper
The Free Enterprise Forum, as a part of its mission to inform, analyze and promote
dialog, is pleased to present a research paper on cash proffers and their impact (or lack
thereof) on community development.
Significant data was derived from The Report on Proffered Cash Payments and
Expenditures by Virginia’s Counties, Cities and Towns authored by The Commission on
Local Government (CLG). The Free Enterprise Forum would like to thank CLG Senior
Policy Analyst Zachary Robbins for his assistance.
In addition, the author would like to thank the many builders, developers and local
government staff members all of whom helped immensely in gathering relevant, public
source material for this research.
The overarching question this paper seeks to inform is whether cash proffers actually
help fund locality infrastructure needs or serve as a disincentive to rezone land.
Founded in 2003, the Free Enterprise Forum is a privately funded public policy
organization focused on local government issues in the Central Virginia region. The
geographic scope of this study mirrors those areas in which the Free Enterprise Forum
operates.
The goal of the Contradictory Consequences white paper is to promote dialog and
discussion regarding the community impacts of cash proffers. The Free Enterprise
Forum hopes this data and analysis will spark additional public interest in this important
economic vitality issue.
Well-informed citizens make well-informed decisions.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neil Williamson, President
February 28, 2013
Cash Proffers Defined
Charged with tabulating the collection and expenditure of cash proffers throughout the
Commonwealth, the Commission on Local Government (CLG) annually conducts a
survey of all localities authorized by code to collect cash proffers. According to their
FY2011 Report, “The survey revealed that 38 (23.46%) of the 162 eligible localities (26
counties, 7 cities, and 5 towns) reported cash proffer activity during FY 2012. This
represents a decrease of two localities (5.0%) in the number of local governments
accepting cash proffers compared to FY2011”.
The term “cash proffers” refers to the ability of high-growth localities in the State of
Virginia to accept cash payments as a “reasonable condition” of a rezoning or
amendment to a zoning map.
As defined in Section 15.2-2298 of Virginia Code, reasonable conditions may include the
payment of cash for any off-site road improvement or any off-site transportation
improvement that is adopted as an amendment to the required comprehensive plan
and incorporated into the capital improvements program. 1
Cash proffers are a form of conditional zoning in Virginia. Conditional zoning was
enabled to address the inadequacy of traditional zoning methods and procedures when
competing and incompatible land uses conflict. Virginia Code § 15.2-2296. At least in
theory, conditional zoning allows land to be rezoned that might not otherwise be
rezoned because the proffers protect the community in which the land is located by
imposing additional regulations or conditions on the land being rezoned. Virginia Code §
15.2-2296; Riverview Farm Associates v. Board of Supervisors of Charles City County,
259 Va. 419, 528 S.E.2d 99 (2000); Gregory v. Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County, 257 Va. 530, 514 S.E.2d 350 (1999). The Attorney General has stated that
conditional zoning addresses the effects of changing land use patterns within
communities, and that it permits differing land uses within those communities while
protecting the community as a whole. 1997 Va. Op. Atty. Gen. 66. In short, proffers
allow the impacts resulting from a rezoning to be better addressed.2
These voluntarily proffered payments, also referred to as cash proffers, comprise either
(1) any money voluntarily proffered in writing signed by the owner of property subject
to rezoning, and accepted by a locality pursuant to the authority granted by §15.2-2298
or §15.2-2303 of the Code of Virginia; or (2) any payment of money made pursuant to a
development agreement entered into under the authority granted by §15.2-2303.1 of
the Code of Virginia. 3
1 Guide To Cash Proffers in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Roanoke Valley Allegany Regional Commission
January 25, 2008, Page 1
2Kamptner, Greg The Albemarle County Land Use Law Handbook, July 2012page 11-1
3 Report on Proffered Cash Payments and Expenditures By Virginia’s Counties, Cities and Towns 2010-
2011, Commission on Local Government Commonwealth of Virginia November 2011, Page 1
Although the Code of Virginia has authorized every jurisdiction to use some form of
conditional zoning since 1987, only localities meeting specific criteria may accept cash
proffers. On the basis of these criteria and census data from 1990 through 2010, 298
Virginia localities (89 counties, 37 cities, and 172 towns) were eligible to accept cash
proffers during FY 2012.4
The CLG survey found that 40 (26.14%) of the 153 eligible localities (27 counties, 7 cities,
and 6 towns) reported cash proffer activity during FY 2011. This represents a decrease
of three localities (7.0%) in the number of local governments accepting cash proffers
over FY 2010.
During the current period, the aggregate amount of cash proffers collected and
expended by those jurisdictions was $36,066,019 and $28,031,345, respectively.
This represents a 25.9% decrease in cash proffer collections from the previous fiscal
year. Cash proffer expenditures decreased by 39.1% over the same time period.5
Locality Maximum Cash Proffer
Albemarle Single Family Detached $19,753
Townhouse $13,432
Multi Family $13,996
Charlottesville No cash proffers
Greene $5,778 per unit
Fluvanna $6,577 per unit
Louisa $4,362 per unit
Nelson No cash proffers
Lower land values, lower property tax revenue - In concept, cash proffers are voluntary
payments made by landowners to mitigate the impacts of changing the prescriptive
zoning on their property. The concept works best when the rezoned value exceeds the
increased cost of the cash proffer combined with the other increased costs of rezoning
the property (time, additional proffers, carrying costs, etc.). Such a symbiotic
4 Ibid
5 Report on Proffered Cash Payments and Expenditures By Virginia’s Counties, Cities and Towns 2010-
2011, Commission on Local Government Commonwealth of Virginia November 2011, Page 3
relationship is difficult to achieve with automatic inflation increasing cash proffers and
fragile, fickle housing markets not keeping pace.
Many believe the increased cost of a cash proffer will be borne by the end user, the new
homebuyer. While this can and does occur, it can only occur in a housing market that
has constant upward motion. Affordable housing is a critical issue in all localities and in
rising markets cash proffers further drive up new (and by extension existing) home
prices.
Basic economic theory indicates any increased cost must be paid by an entity that is a
part of the transaction. Economic theory of the firm begins with theory of production.
The firm is a supplier in market for goods and services. It has to adjust its production to
satisfy the demand curve of its customers at profit. It is assumed that the firm or the
owner of the firm always strives to produce efficiently, or at lowest cost. He will always
attempt to produce the maximum level of output for a given dose of inputs avoiding
waste whenever possible.6
If prices do not continually increase, some believe the proffer cost will be extracted
from the developer (often referred to as “speculative enterprise”) profit margin. In
reality, almost all projects require some level of financing to complete their
development. In recent years, the level of financial analysis (or pro forma) required to
obtain such financing have increased; therefore the “developer margin” must be
maintained. If the margin is not retained, the project does not obtain the required
financing to move forward; no cash proffer is paid.
The economic definition of the “production function” is the relationship between the
maximum amount of output that can be produced and the inputs required to make that
output. From the production function, the cost curves of a firm for each of its products
can be determined. Contribution of each factor of production i.e., land, capital is also
determined from production functions. The price that a factor of production will
command in the market will be determined by the production functions from the
demand side.7
The theory of production decisions in the short run, as just outlined, leads to two
conclusions (of fundamental importance throughout the field of economics) about the
responses of business firms to the market prices of the commodities they produce and
the factors of production they buy or hire: (1) the firm will produce the quantity of its
product for which the marginal cost is equal to the market price and (2) it will purchase
6 Management Theory Review, Dr. Narayana Rao, December 11, 2011
7 Ibid
or hire factors of production in such quantities that the price of the commodity
produced multiplied by the marginal product of the factor will be equal to the cost of a
unit of the factor. The first explains the supply curves of the commodities produced in
an economy. Though the conclusions were deduced within the context of a firm that
uses two factors of production, they are clearly applicable in general.8
According to the production theory, if the end user and developer are not available to
accept the cost of the cash proffer it is the land owner, whose land will be discounted by
the increased entitlement costs that cash proffers create. In turn, such reduced land
values reduce the locality’s real estate tax assessed value and revenue (absent an
increase in the tax rate).
‘By Right’ Development Encouraged Charlottesville and Albemarle are currently
updating their State mandated comprehensive plans. These community vetted plans
suggest the manner in which the locality wishes to grow in the next twenty years.
In many, if not most, cases the zoning in a locality’s development area does not match
the comprehensive plan designation. Comprehensive plan designation must be
reviewed by the locality every five years under state code. While the property owner
does not have to agree to the comprehensive plan changes, they cannot act on those
new designations until they have rezoned the property. Alternatively, if the land owner
chooses to move forward with the existing, some might call “stale”, zoning, which likely
does not agree with the locality’s comprehensive plan, they can do so immediately
without paying any cash proffers.
Hanover County Board of Supervisors Chairman W. Canova Peterson IV told the Herald-
Progress.com, “They [The Proffers Committee] recognized there was an unfairness.
Some people had to pay it, some people didn’t. You could go to a site in my subdivision
in one of the vacant lots, you go in there and build a house, you could have 10 kids and
you won’t pay a proffer if we still had proffers. No zoning is required…It was not a
situation that hit everybody fairly. I always felt that it was wrong in the sense that the
least well-to-do of us have had to pay the same rates as the most well-to-do. For
instance, you’re buying a $100,000 home, you’re talking about a 20 percent tax. If
you’ve got a $1 million home it’s the same dollar amount and it becomes somewhat
irrelevant at that level. So, it was kind of lousy for the people that were in the tightest
situations”9.
8 Encyclopedia Britanica, Dr. Robert Dorfman, Emeritus Professor of Economics, Harvard University,
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/477991/theory-of-production retrieved 2/15/2013
9 Herald-Progress.com, February 8, 2013
CASE STUDY - Lochlyn Hill – Albemarle County/City of Charlottesville
In 2011, a developer acquired the rights to a project that included property in The City
of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Charlottesville does not have a cash proffer,
while Albemarle’s exceeds $19,000 per single family home. After calculating the
increased value of the land with the rezoning in each locality (and calculating the time
such applications include), the developer chose to rezone the property that was in the
City (without cash proffers) to a Planned Urban Development (PUD) with no greater
than 5.9 units per acre10 and chose NOT to rezone the eleven acres located in the
county. These acres would be developed by-right.
The development would consist of single-family
homes, cottages and townhomes11. This calculated
decision was based on calculation of the cost (in
money and time) of rezoning the County land
exceeded the increase value.
In the City of Charlottesville staff report
recommending approval of the project. City staff
highlighted the benefits available under the
rezoning as compared with the existing 100 year
old plat.
“The proposed PUD responds to the existing
topography of the site, avoids the stream crossing,
preserves 79 trees on the site, and guarantees
15% open space by virtue of being rezoned to
PUD. The plan, however, is more in line with
modern development techniques than the type of
development in the rest of Belmont.
“In differentiating between the two layouts, the
impact on the environment is a large factor. The
proposal uses a road layout that follows the topography of the site, while the Belmont
plat did not take topography into account when it was drawn up over 100 years ago.
Additionally, the 15% open space requirement of the PUD, along with the greater
10 Charlottesville PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET, TUESDAY, July 10, 2012
11 Tubbs, Sean, Charlottesville Tomorrow, Planners get first look at 204-unit city-county neighborhood,
April 11, 2012
certainty of the required site plan submission that would follow the approval of PUD
means the City would have more certainty regarding the future use of the land”12
Therefore, the City of Charlottesville due to its lack of cash proffer, reduced process
time, and increased certainty of rezoning outcomes encouraged this land owner to
request a rezoning while in Albemarle County the land owner was economically
incentivized to not to follow the community vetted comprehensive plan vision but
instead to construct lower density, less thoughtfully designed developments. The
Albemarle portion of this project will be built utilizing prior zoning to meet local building
and zoning code but absent the enhancements and flexibility a rezoning might allow.
False Financial Hope – Sold to the public as an answer to infrastructure financing woes,
cash proffers were thought to provide significant new revenue for Capital Improvement
Plans (CIP). The annual CIP for most localities total in the hundreds of thousands if not
millions of dollars. These plans represent the costs of building the required
infrastructure to deliver government services (i.e. schools, fire stations, etc.).
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a five year schedule prepared for capital projects
in the County. It is required to forecast capital outlays for the upcoming fiscal year and
the ensuing four years. The information provided in the CIP is useful for projecting
future revenue needs and setting funding priorities. It is also a valuable planning tool for
the preparation of the County budget.
The CIP is intended to advise the Board of Supervisors so better decisions can be made
regarding capital expenditures. It is not intended to be used so particular capital
projects can reserve funding. The County’s CIP is its plan for capital expenditures over
the upcoming five years. Capital expenditures/projects are defined in general as the
purchase or construction of long-lived, high-cost, tangible assets.
The CIP is updated on an annual basis, so capital projects can be removed when they are
completed or as priorities change. Once adopted, capital project priorities may change
throughout the year based on changing circumstances. It is also possible that particular
projects may not be funded during the year that is indicated in the CIP. The status of any
project becomes increasingly uncertain the further in the future it is projected.
In accordance with Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, the County can not accept
proffers without first adopting a CIP. Proffers are voluntary contributions typically
offered as part of a rezoning application to mitigate impacts associated with new
12 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT,
Brian Haluska, Revised January 13, 2012 page 8
development. Proffers can include cash, property or any other contribution that is
directly attributable to the development. Since proffers are specific to a particular
development, the County can accept proffers that are not found in the CIP. However,
before the County can receive property or cash from a proffer the CIP needs to be
updated to include the project to which the proffer is connected. The proffer language
itself should specify how cash or property will be used if the County chooses not to use
the cash or property for its intended purpose.13
Localities see cash proffers as a valuable source of revenue to address the impacts from
development and they support the funding of important County projects which would
otherwise be funded through general tax revenue.
Locality Capital Improvement Plan FY 2012
Albemarle $21,506,920
Charlottesville $24,000,000
Greene $840,746
Fluvanna $5,888,000
Louisa $6,083,000
Nelson $900,500
In reality many, if not most of the infrastructure demanded by the CIP are needed
regardless of the number of new housing starts. A review of the Albemarle County
Schools CIP reveals the following classification of spending: Administrative Technology,
Instructional Technology, Telecommunications Network Upgrade, School Bus
Replacement, School Maintenance/Replacement, School Facility Lease 14
In a separate document the School Board included additions to a number of schools and
modernization of others. While all of these may be Capital needs for the County it is
questionable that new development generated all of these needs. Certainly residents
who purchase new homes may have children that need to ride the school bus but so do
residents who purchase existing homes.
13 County of Louisa 2013 Capital Improvement Plan, Page 6
14 County of Albemarle School Board CIP October 2012
Further, tying the
funding for these
infrastructure
needs to an
intermittent
revenue source
ensures priorities
will not be
completed in a
timely manner.
In addition,
banking on
unrealized cash
proffers creates a false sense of wealth that may never be realized.
In November 2012, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was presented a staff
report outlining cash proffers that were in excess of $49.3 million dollars quite literally
off the chart15.
As one looks at this chart (above) and sees almost $50 million dollars proffered, one
might anticipate the cash proffer program is answering the very need it was designed
but the Free Enterprise Forum estimates at least 28% of those proffers will never be
collected as they are associated with the now defunct Biscuit Run development.
It is interesting that while the State of Virginia acquired the property for a state park on
December 31, 2009 16, Albemarle County continued to calculate those proffers as
receivable in November 2012.
In addition, even those projects that may eventually get constructed are likely over
stated for cash proffers. Very few, if any, residential projects have built out to their
maximum density. This is a reaction to the market demands as well the regulatory
environment that bases the cost of the entire project on the overall density.
This is in direct contradiction to the goal of densification of Albemarle’s development
areas. According to the Code of Virginia, Urban Development Areas are areas for
compact, mixed use urban development. Densities and intensities within UDAs are
expected to be a minimum of four or more dwellings per developable acre for single
15 Cash Proffer Staff Report, Albemarle County November 7, 2012 page 1
16 Wheeler, Brian, Biscuit Run bought by Virginia to create new state park in Albemarle, Charlottesville
Tomorrow, December 31, 2009
family detached housing, a minimum of six or more dwellings per developable acre for
townhouses, or a minimum of 12 or more multifamily units per developable acre 17.
Of equal or perhaps greater import in the chart is the relatively low number of proffers
collected. In 2011, Albemarle collected just over $200 thousand dollars in cash proffers
which provided just 1.1% of the 2011CIP funding. Considering Albemarle’s population,
this represents a per capita contribution of $2.08 annually.
Responding to the cash proffer demand and market conditions $0 in cash proffers were
offered to Albemarle County in 2009 – 2011.
Despite calls to the contrary, when calculated accurately cash proffers will never be a
significant funding source for CIP.
Development Area Pipeline Jammed, Tax Revenue Reduced, Rural Areas Jeopardized –
The concept of denser more urban core is at the heart of Virginia’s mandated Urban
Development Areas (UDAs). Beyond simple economics of delivery of government
services, several studies indicate when placed correctly these UDAs can have a positive
impact on economic development.
Planner Peter Katz has been calculated that the vast discrepancy in property tax revenue
per acre between commercial development in low-density versus high-density settings
in Sarasota, Fla. A mid-rise tower with retail on the ground floor and condominiums
above could yield literally 100 times the property tax revenue per acre as a Wal-Mart18.
Interestingly, Alanna McKeeman, who performed an in-depth analysis of the Fairfax
County tax base for her 2012 Master’s Thesis in urban planning at Virginia Tech, “Land
Use, Municipal Revenue Impacts, and Land Consumption” found:
“Clearly, the land and buildings in [the Reston] study area are quite valuable
compared to County averages for the same land uses. Extremely high-value,
dense housing and office space surround the Town Center, suggesting
agglomeration benefits and perhaps a premium on the pedestrian accessibility of
these properties to various amenities in the surrounding area. … The denser,
walkable nature of Reston Town Center, combined with proximity to Dulles
airport, appears to result in higher property values.”19
17 Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan adopted 2007 page 4
18 Bacon, James The Fiscal Fix, Bacon’s Rebellion June 18, 2012
19 Bacon, James, Land Use and Tax Revenue in Fairfax County, Bacon’s Rebellion, February 19, 2013
Thus encouraging denser uses encourages an increased tax base. It only follows that
requiring cash proffers for increases in density hinders said increased tax base. If cash
proffers hinder density, then cash proffers hinder commercial growth as well.
Case Study: Crozet Downtown District
The vision for the downtown district of Crozet in Albemarle County is based on
residential over retail. Image a storefront on Crozet Avenue and two stories of
apartments above
the storefront. Each
floor will have four
apartments. Absent
Albemarle County’s
proactive zoning, the
developer would be
required to provide
$103968 (12,996 * 8)
cash proffer for the residential units. Adding this to the construction and operating
costs, places the required rent higher than the market will bear.
Albemarle County recognized this when they proactively rezoned much of the
downtown area and created an entire new zoning district without cash proffers. In the
code it stipulates - By right uses; residential. The following residential uses are
permitted by right, provided that the first floor of the building in which the residential
use exists is designed for and occupied only by a use permitted by subsections 20B.2(A),
(B), (C) or (E).20 If a no cash proffer policy is acceptable in the downtown Crozet
District, why is it not preferred in the other, equally important, development areas?
Case Study Dunlora Forest
In 2011, a developer acquired the rights to develop a parcel just off of Rio Road in
Albemarle County’s designated development area. The property had existing zoning for
100 residential units. The developer evaluated the cost of seeking a rezoning that might
allow up to an additional 100 residential units.
One of the largest costs of rezoning would be the cash proffers that would be charged
not only on the increase in density but on all residential units in the project.
20 Albemarle County Code, Downtown Crozet District, Section 20.B
Photo Credit: Mudhouse
Based on the topographical challenges of the site, it could be assumed if they were able
to gain a rezoning for a total of 200 residential units the majority would be townhomes.
While it is likely there would be a mix of
small lot single family units and
townhome, to estimate the cash proffers
conservatively, let’s assume all would be
townhomes. Using that assumption,
under Albemarle County’s cash proffer
policy the increased cost would be $2.69
million dollars (200*$13,432). In
addition, it is estimated such a rezoning
would take at a minimum 2 years to work
through the approval process. The financial carrying costs for this project would
approach $1,000,000 utilizing private financing (as banks are increasingly hesitant to
finance such loans). Therefore, while a rezoning could double the density of the project
it would come at a cost of $3.69 million dollars or $36,900 ($3,690,000/100) for each
additional developable unit. In addition, the per new unit surcharge could increase if
the total density of the project was reduced as a function of the rezoning process. After
running the numbers, the developer chose to produce the by right density rather than
risking the additional time and cost of a rezoning.21
According to the Piedmont Environmental Council, Albemarle County has in excess of
10,000 units already rezoned for residential development 22. Why have these projects
not moved forward?
Have the embedded costs of development in Albemarle County, including cash proffers,
created a cost burden the market is unable to
bear?
If growth trends continue, won’t these significant
embedded costs push residential development out
of Albemarle County’s designated growth areas
and into the rural areas?
The reality is that cash proffers contribute to the
paradigm that single family rural residential
development remains the least expensive, lowest
21 Armstrong, Charlie, Southern Development Personal Interview February 20, 2013
22 Werner, Jeff, Piedmont Environmental Council, Email correspondence February 13, 2013
Image Credit http://webspace.ship.edu/cajant/images/albemarle_county_landcover.jpg
risk, easiest to finance and most profitable development option in Albemarle County.
If cash proffers are pushing development into the rural areas and surrounding localities,
what are the community costs of increased traffic, more costly government services
delivery, as well as loss of environmental contributing farmland, and productivity?
Competitive Disadvantage - In the Richmond area, Hanover County eliminated their
cash proffer on new homes late last year. In late February, Hanover announced they’re
considering a plan that would charge developers as little as $2,306 per lot to help cover
the cost of new road projects spurred by residential growth23
Chesterfield County, the only Richmond locality currently applying a cash proffer, is
reviewing their policy (currently $18,966) as a part of their comprehensive plan. Several
rezoning cases have been deferred multiple times by the Chesterfield Planning
Commission awaiting an outcome of their cash proffer debate. All of these projects are
seeking a variance from the cash proffer to provide their projects with an even playing
field as compared with surrounding localities.
When Hanover County went from being the highest cash proffer in the region to
eliminating the program, one residential development did not wait for the rollback
policy to go into effect, they dropped prices by $10,000 and added $2,000 incentive for
closing costs24. In the Richmond market, this cost reduction means that home is price
accessible to over 14,000 potential new home buyers who previously could not afford it.
Leapfrog development is generally accepted as residential development that is located
outside a neighboring jurisdictional boundary in order to receive more favorable land
prices and/or regulatory treatment in an adjoining locality. This is directly in conflict
with locality planned Urban Development Areas designed to focus development into
specific areas to more efficiently deliver government services.
Urban Development Area is defined by Virginia Code Section § 15.2-2223.1
"Urban development area" means an area designated by a locality that is (i) appropriate
for higher density development due to its proximity to transportation facilities, the
availability of a public or community water and sewer system, or a developed area
and(ii) to the extent feasible, to be used for redevelopment or infill development.
23 Shuleeta, Brandon, Hanover considers restoring proffers, Richmond Times Dispatch, February 25, 2013
24 Calos, Katherine, Hanover Developers jump at chance to avoid proffers, Richmond Times-Dispatch
December 11, 2012
Leapfrog development tends to result in increased pressure on transportation networks
on both localities.25
Why does leapfrog development occur?
When faced with two equally attractive development sites, one in the urban core with
cash proffer requirements and another, perhaps further out, without the cash proffer
requirement, which project will move forward first?
The increase in demand for housing farther from inner cities is partly due to mistaken
government policies. Zoning restrictions, for example, often lead to sprawl by requiring
high-density residential construction and large parking lots for businesses. Such
regulations favor sprawl while limiting the choices of homebuyers and business
owners.26
Conclusion: Repeal the Rezoning Ransom
The siren’s song of cash proffers is very strong for elected officials. The idea of
generating revenue from new home buyers (who are not yet voters) to “pay their way”
is too good to be true. The negative impacts of cash proffers as documented in this
paper include tearing up the community vision as expressed in the comprehensive plan.
All Virginia Localities are required to have Urban Growth Areas where they plan to focus
growth. Such design provides economic efficiency in delivery of core government
functions and preserves important ecological contributions of the rural areas.
Unfortunately, cash proffers discourage rezoning in the development areas and
encourages the very type of large lot low density residential construction in rural areas.
Sold to the public as a way to make growth pay for itself, the unintended negative
economic and planning impacts have caused localities across the Commonwealth to
repeal such ordinances and replace these funds with more dependable and equitable
infrastructure funding options. Today, rather than simply recalibrating their cash
proffer calculation, as Albemarle County is doing, full repeal of cash proffers in all
localities is a much more economically sensible and sustainable alternative.
Cash proffers are per unit fees “voluntarily” extracted from applicants seeking to rezone
their property. These funds were designed to help fund major facilities and
infrastructure, such as schools, roads, parks, libraries, courthouses and fire stations that
are required to service the new residential (or commercial) units.
25 Code of Virginia § 15.2-2223.1 A.
26 Miller, Mark, What Causes Sprawl?, National Center for Policy Analysis blog, October 2, 2003
In theory, such “voluntary” proffers would be directly tied to the costs associated with
the increased density of a rezoning. In this paper we have found several case studies
where cash proffers lowered land values, encouraged by right development contrary to
comprehensive plans and fostered a false hope for outside infrastructure funding. In
addition this economic disincentive promotes rural/leapfrog development and hinders
the entire community’s economic vitality.
In addition cash proffers are an unreliable way to fund infrastructure spending.
Forecasting cash proffer revenue is much like predicting snow in Central Virginia,
localities do not know when it is coming, how much they are actually going to get or
when it will stop. Cash proffers rarely, if ever, total the amounts localities are banking
on.
Based on this research, we believe local governments are starting to recognize the
negative impacts of cash proffers. Localities are finding that just because the state
legislature may empower the ability to collect cash proffers in may not be in the
localities best interest to collect them.
The elimination of cash proffers will promote better community design and encourage
new home construction invigorating the economic vitality of all localities.
The Free Enterprise Forum is encouraged that the FY2011 CLG survey found the number
of localities accepting cash proffers had declined. We are also encouraged by the
actions of Hanover County to repeal their cash proffer policy and eagerly await the
results of several other locality cash proffer reviews.
Cash proffers have produced a plethora of Contradictory Consequences without
achieving significant benefit. Now is the time to repeal this rezoning ransom.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Review of County’s Priority List of Secondary Road
Improvements and the VDOT Secondary Six-Year Plan
for 2014-2019
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session to review the County’s Priority List of
Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT
Secondary Six-Year Plan.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Walker, Davis, Benish, and Sorrell
PRESENTER: David Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 1, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements establishes the priorities for road improvements in the State’s
Secondary Road system (roads with a route number of 600 or higher). The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Secondary Six-Year Plan (SSYP) is the construction program for the secondary road system based on the County’s
Priority List and reflects available state road funding allocated to the County. A separate program exists for the Primary
and Interstate road systems. The County’s Priority List and the VDOT SSYP are typically reviewed annually. Based on
the direction provided by the Board regarding projects to be funded, VDOT will draft a revised SSYP.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
Attachment A is the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements adopted by the Board on May 2, 2012.
Attachment B is the VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program. Staff will revise the County’s Priority List
and VDOT Six Year Program for the public hearing based on input received from the Board.
Available Funding – VDOT has provided the following projected funding allocations for Albemarle County:
FISCAL YEAR
SECONDARY
UNPAVED
ROAD FUND1
CTB UNPAVED
ROAD FUND 2
REG. STATE
FUNDS
(teletax fee)
SECONDARY
FORMULA
FUNDS
TOTAL FUNDS
2013-14 $0 $71,588 $295,492 $0 $367,080
2014-15 $0 $584,942 $308,284 $0 $893,226
2015-16 $0 $881,454 $308,284 $0 $1,189,738
2016-17 $137,955 $997,207 $308,284 $137,955 $1,443,446
2017-18 $170,249 $997,207 $308,284 $170,249 $2,043,491
2018-19 $204,172 $997,207 $308,284 $204,172 $2,190,541
Totals $512,376 4,529,605 $1,587,578 $512,376 $8,587,578
Total unpaved road funds $5,041,981
Notes:
1- Roads must carry 50 vehicle per day (VPD) or greater.
2- Must be applied to unpaved roads with traffic counts of 200 vehicles per day (VPD) or greater.
Funding for the next six years is projected to increase significantly from the prior year’s projections of $350,000 per
year. The more significant increases in funding are projected in years 4 through 6 of the Six Year Program. Most of
the funding increases are allocated for paving unpaved roads. Since last year, changes have occurred to state
funding sources for unpaved roads. There are two categories of unpaved road funds this year - 1) Secondary
Unpaved Road Funds and 2) the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) Formula Unpaved Road Funds.
AGENDA TITLE: Review of County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT SSYP
May 1, 2013
Page 2
Category one, the Secondary Unpaved Road Funds, are construction funds generated by a formula for use towards
road paving projects and which is subject to a penalty formula adjustments if the funds are not used for road paving
projects. Funds from this category could be used for other types of projects, but the County’s future allocations would
be reduced based upon a formula adjustment.
Category two, the CTB Formula Unpaved Road Funds, is funding that must be used to pave gravel roads that have
greater than 200 vehicle trips per day (VPD). As stated by VDOT staff :
“Eligibility requirements for the CTB Formula Unpaved Road [category 2] funds set forth in § 33.1-23.1 of the
Code requires roadways to have a traffic count greater than 200 VPD. These funds may only be programmed to
roadways with traffic volumes greater than 200 VPD. The penalty associated with the regular construction
formula [category1] unpaved road funds with a traffic count greater than 50 VPD does not apply as set forth in §
33.1-23.1:1.”
Proposed Modifications to County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements (Priority List)
Many of the transportation projects and priorities identified in the County’s Priority List are derived from the
recommendations of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Long
Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Both the Comprehensive Plan and the LRTP are currently in the process of being
reviewed and updated by the Planning Commission and the MPO; therefore staff recommends that no major changes
be made to the Priority List this year. A more comprehensive review of this Priority List and other transportation
priorities will be undertaken next year with the completion of the Comprehensive Plan and the LRTP update.
Staff has received three new requests for road construction improvements. Most other comments and requests
received over the year have been for roads already listed on the County’s Priority List of Road Improvements, or were
associated with primary roads. The public requests are:
Castle Rock Road (Rt. 691)—Public request to pave the road due to erosion issues. Some sections of this
road may not be eligible because traffic volume is below 50 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The section from
Route 635 to the dead end meets the minimum volume requirement (120 VPD), but the section from Route
635 to Rt. 636 has only 30 VPD.
Clark Road (Rt. 674)—Public request to pave at least some portions of the road from Millington Road (Rt.
671) and Brown’s Gap Turnpike (Rt. 810). VDOT will evaluate whether certain sections can be improved to
address erosion and safety issues (paving along blind curve locations). The road carries 46 VPD and may not
be eligible for unpaved road funding. VDOT staff should evaluate conditions on the road and determine if
there are any spot improvements that can be made to improve road conditions.
Improve sight distance at Rose Hill Church Lane (Rt.762) and Milton Road (Rt.732)—VDOT has determined
that any substantial improvement to sight distance would require a shifting or relocation of the intersection.
This project would have to be included in the County’s Strategic Priorit ies page of the County Priority List and
prioritized high enough to be included in VDOT’s SSYP for funding. While there will be some additional
funding in the future for general road construction projects, those funds are still relatively limited. Milton Road
carries 960 VPD (2011) and Rose Hill Church Lane carries 120 VPD (2006).
The following are additional comments and recommendations from VDOT and County staff regarding the County’s
Priority List of Improvments:
VDOT staff has reviewed both the Rural Rustic Road (RRR) Paving Project list and the Regular Road Paving
Project list and confirmed that the projects on the RRR list accurately reflect the projects’ eligibility for RRR
paving.
Buck Mountain Ford Lane (Rt. 776) should be deleted from the Regular Paving Projects List (the last project
on the list). The project is not eligible for paving because its traffic volume is below 50 VPD.
Several of the County’s strategic secondary road improvement priorities have been completed or are nearly
complete and should be deleted from the Priority List. These include:
- The County’s portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway;
- Jarman’s Gap Road (Rt. 691) (under construction);
- Georgetown Road (Rt. 656);
- Rose Hill Church Lane (Rt. 762) RRR paving project;
AGENDA TITLE: Review of County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT SSYP
May 1, 2013
Page 3
- Fortune Lane (Rt. 704) RRR paving project;
- Blufton Road (Rt. 672) RRR paving project; and
- Happy Creek Road (Rt. 608) RRR paving project.
Proposed Modifications to the VDOT Secondary Six-Year Plan (SSYP)
The projected funds in the current VDOT SSYP for FY 13 through FY 18 were allocated to the Black Cat Road bridge
project, the Dry Bridge Road bridge project, the Broomley Road bridge project, the Dick Woods Road bridge project,
the Bear Creek Road RRR paving project and the Pocket Lane RRR paving project in the current VDOT Six Year
Secondary Construction Program (approved last year).
The following are VDOT and County staff comments and recommendations:
All three bridge replacement projects in the VDOT Six Year Program are on schedule and no additional funds
are anticipated to be needed at this time.
VDOT and County staff recommend that Bear Creek Road (Rt.774) not be paved and be removed from the
SSYP and the County priority list of improvements. VDOT has indicated that the road would be very difficult
to upgrade given the current road alignment and topography of the area. It is an expensive road to pave
($1,206,130) and would serve a low volume of traffic (80 AADT, 5/4/06).
County staff recommends that the Pocket Lane (Rt. 703) paving project and the Dickerson Road (Rt. 606)
bridge replacement project be retained in the VDOT SSYP.
Given the focus of future State funding on road paving projects, County staff recommends that five new road
paving projects be included in the Six Year Construction Program: Rio Mills Road, Doctor’s Crossing (Rt.
784), Midway Road (Rt. 824), Keswick Drive (Rt.878) and Gillums Ridge Road. Rio Mills Road is the highest
priority road paving project due to the volume and type of traffic on the road and its location within or near the
designated Development Area (Hollymead and the northern Urban Area). Doctor’s Crossing , Midway Road,
Keswick Drive and Gillums Ridge Road are the highest ranked RRR paving projects not yet included in the
VDOT SSYP. Including those roads will ensure that the projected CTB Unpaved Road Funds are allocated in
the SSYP.
FY 19 is the “new” sixth year of the SSYP and the FY 19 funds may be needed to complete funding for the Pocket
Lane paving project. Because the total cost for RRR paving projects in general have been lower than previously
estimated in the Six Year Secondary Construction Program, funds may al so be available for an additional project(s).
Due to the increase in State funding in the out years of the next six years, major construction projects identified on the
strategic priorities list (page 1 of Attachment A) may be viable projects to again include in the VDOT SSYP in the
future. Staff recommends that in light of the pending completion of the Comprehensive Plan update and the MPO
LRTP, that discussion of changes to the strategic priority list be addressed in next year’s review after t he
Comprehensive Plan and LRTP updates have been completed.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Six Year Secondary Road process establishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of State/VDOT
secondary road construction funds and does not impact County funding.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests that the Board: 1) provide comments on the County’s Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements
(Attachment A) and VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program (Attachment B) and 2) schedule a public
hearing on the County Priority List and VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program on June 12, 2013.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Albemarle County Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements
B – VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program (FY13 to FY18)
Return to agenda